Are There Hidden Psychological Causes of Political Correctness
In this video a lady feigns injury to prove her "advantage" to the judge/jury
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSlcROX8HPE
This seems very similar to the underpinnings of what is causing people to abide excessively by political correctness. It is a safety mechanism to prove one's superiority.
For instance, in our society a lady of weak stature can walk up to a gangster and preach her moral opinions with a finger pointed at him. She can do this all without fear of being physically assaulted... Why? Because she hides behind the law.
Likewise, people hide behind political correct etiquette to protect their ego's.
The real question is "Why are people taking offence in the first place?"
When someone calls you a no-hoper, dope, space-cadet, weirdo, douchebag... They are conveying an emotional state through a single word. It is the emotion that is transferred which makes the person feel inferior. Yet, people who are developing these politically correct restrictions over words are putting the cart before the horse. The root is in peoples emotional state. The problem is the ego, not the words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSlcROX8HPE
This seems very similar to the underpinnings of what is causing people to abide excessively by political correctness. It is a safety mechanism to prove one's superiority.
For instance, in our society a lady of weak stature can walk up to a gangster and preach her moral opinions with a finger pointed at him. She can do this all without fear of being physically assaulted... Why? Because she hides behind the law.
Likewise, people hide behind political correct etiquette to protect their ego's.
The real question is "Why are people taking offence in the first place?"
When someone calls you a no-hoper, dope, space-cadet, weirdo, douchebag... They are conveying an emotional state through a single word. It is the emotion that is transferred which makes the person feel inferior. Yet, people who are developing these politically correct restrictions over words are putting the cart before the horse. The root is in peoples emotional state. The problem is the ego, not the words.
Comments (183)
Originally the idea of having a plebiscite was seen as a way of allowing the populace to express an opinion on the question; the current Government had taken the plebiscite to the people in the last election.
But now the left side of politics are saying that debating the question in the lead up to the plebiscite will give free reign to 'hate speech'. The Labor leader has said:
'“The experts are making it really clear to me that there will be tremendous harm caused by a plebiscite, a divisive debate which will reignite some of the worst arguments of people who are opposed to gay Australians having equal rights.'
Their general view is:
'Many gay and lesbian advocates have opposed a plebiscite on the basis that it would unleash a campaign of hatred and homophobia that will be damaging to LGBTI people.'
So what the argument appears to be, is that any debate all is damaging, because, if there is something to be debated, then it must imply that there is some grounds for questioning marriage equality. And the marriage equality movement equates opposition with bigotry - so discussing, debating, or voting on the question, amounts to 'letting the bigots have their say'. The Greens are now saying the only appropriate course of action is to amend the marriage act by an act of Parliament; the implication being, those opposed to it are bigots, as there can be no rational reason to oppose it.
Should there be such referendums for every ideology, or opinion in your view, or just the ones you're sympathetic to? Should we seriously allow the public platform to every form of morbidity, and disgrace for genuine consideration so as to be all equals and fairies? I highly doubt you'd hold such a view.
That view you describe sounds about right to me, and would to you as well given the right subject, only on top of that, you would be mistaken, whereas I would not be.
I'm afraid sir, that I have the high ground.
How is the marriage equality debate in australia relating to The Hidden Psychological Causes of Political Correctness and do you have anything to say about that without describing in much length something that while interesting doesn't specifically respond to what I was saying about peoples psychology not political parties?
She can do that because the law protects her from assault - as it ought to. Do you want to argue that it ought not to protect her from having the gangster beat her up? Is that your idea of what constitutes 'political correctness'?
Changing the marriage act is no trifle. It is a momentous social change, therefore the Government elected to hold a plebiscite on it. The fact that this is now being fiercely combatted by those who stand most to benefit from it says a great deal about both 'political correctness' and basic questions of free speech, in my opinion.
I thought that that statement was stupid too, but because a "gangster" is a career criminal... so law is probably not as massive a deterrent as it would be for a non-career criminal one would think... presumably something else must be holding them back, one would hope, even as a thief or even murderer, they would have some sense of the low quality of beating women and children even at their own minor offense or harm.
I don't think it says much that many people would rather not suffer disgrace and affront to dignity even at the cost of their own continued oppression.
You have to read on. I said "Likewise, people hide behind political correct etiquette to protect their ego's."
THAT is why I gave the ganster/old women analogy.
You just read it literally, not as an analogy for anything and then thought that I was using that as an example to define political correctness. Maybe you are multi-tasking or something at the moment and that is why you seem to by-pass what was a pretty coherent analogy about how people use systems of either law, social codes and etiquite as a way to defend their ego and not just the rights as a human being.
I will say it loud and clear so you all know, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS...
Hey, I didn't mention it originally, because I didn't think it was important, but since he brought it up I thought that I might as well have shared my original impression, no offense.
Political correctness is just a buzz term, it isn't like it's a new phenomenon, or it's more prevalent now. People say that opposites attract but Nazis and Jews usually don't become best of friends. We're all intolerant of other views, and to the extent that we appear to be tolerant is usually only to the extent that we believe that we have to, or are expected to -- but inside, not so much. Our "tolerance" most often is nothing more than risk management.
Hey, gosh, sorry, but the idea was expressed in such a way that it was very difficult to understand what you mean. So, no, I don't think I read it like a 10 year old, that wasn't the problem, it's just that it was a really poor analogy.
So, the real question is not "Why are people taking offence?"
The answer to that is obvious. They are taking offence because their social capital (or that of the group to which they belong, associate with or sympathize with) is being depleted. The real question is "How far do we want to take political correctness?". Just like the real question is not "Why are people against regressive taxation?" but "How far do we want to take progressive taxation"? We need some of both in order to maintain balanced social structures / economies, but too much of either may provide a disincentive for creative expression / wealth creation that creates more of a drag than a boost.
Great analysis.
So, at risk of being extremely non-PC, here is how that pans out in respect of gay rights - that gay advocacy has appropriated the language of human rights, by equating 'being gay' with other cultural identities such as 'being black' or 'being Jewish'. So this enables gay advocacy to turn the opprobrium which used to be heaped on gays back against their critics, who are now portrayed as, and widely accepted to be, the enemies of human rights and natural justice, just like those who used to oppose racial integration.
Yeah, when we all know that that nature stuff is bullshit, and they're all just unnatural evil perverts.
It pans out the same for every group that has traditionally had low social capital; you use whatever means available to rebalance power relations and thus increase your relative capital. In other words, you take the social stigma imposed on you for being a minority and make use of another social stigma that attaches itself to the deployment of the original social stigma, which makes such deployment counter-productive. You can talk about rights, intolerance, lack of compassion, whatever. It's like putting a plug in a pistol that's pointed at you.
Quoting Wayfarer
Pretty much.
Yeah, all that, but you're on my side right? :D
Hurray!
This suggests that there is a quantity of opprobrium that cannot be created or destroyed but only deflected from one to another. But gays were never regarded the enemies of human rights and natural justice, nor were blacks. The opprobrium is not the same opprobrium, and not on the same scale. One does not generally find racists and homophobes being lynched or beaten up by gangs, or even being imprisoned with hard labour.
Rather, it is the racists and homophobes who are trying to turn the opprobrium they receive back on their opponents, as if being called out on their prejudice is the same as the oppression they have meted out.
It is the person that resorts to name-calling that is the one feeling inferior. I see this all the time in discussions where the person doesn't have a good argument to make and they resort to petty personal attacks. The person being called a name shouldn't feel inferior at that point, but should feel superior as the behavior of name-calling is the behavior of someone feeling inferior.
The real question is why do some people take offense and others don't to the same speech? Why do some gays take offense to gay slurs and some don't. The difference needs to be explained and the explanation is that the gays that don't take offense have a better self-image than the one's that do take offense. They don't allow others to define them - especially others who don't know them. They don't give power to other people's words and they understand that the others' use of "offensive" speech is really a representation of the speaker not the one being spoken about. When we allow others to speak freely we get to know what they really think and what they are really about. Limiting other's speech limits your own freedoms in being able to know what people think.
We know what Trump thinks. He says what he thinks. He's often brutally honest. He may not be right, but he is honest. On the other hand you have Hillary who will smile and shake your hand, yet lie to your face and tell you what you want to hear, and then go and talk behind your back.
I'd much rather live in a society where people are free to say what they think than one where we can't say what we really think. People who are easily offended are the ones who were raised in such a way that they end up having a depleted self-image and any speech that affirms that is offensive.
Well observed.
Quoting Harry Hindu
It's not simply a matter of being personally offended or not, it's a matter of the relative distribution of social capital to the group you belong to. If your group gets less of that, you as a member lose out whether you are offended in a particular instance or not. It might be that you don't get the job you went for, or that you get ignored at a bar, or, yes, that you get ridiculed in a social situation and that depletes your self-image. But regardless of how you were raised or your ability to withstand that kind of treatment, you are on average better off as a minority having more of this capital redistributed in your favour, and political correctness is definitely an element in that equation. That doesn't mean we are not free to say what we think, what it means is that there is a penalty for saying things that are reflective of a less equal distribution of social power. In other words, your reward for stigmatizing or denigrating others is to experience the same sort of thing yourself.
And so we had the often totally illogical kind of revisionism that turned 'handicapped' into 'disabled' (despite many people's feeling that the latter was actually less accurate and more disparaging) and 'spastic' into 'suffering cerebral palsy' evolving eventually into the awful blanket term 'special' (a corruption of 'with special needs'?) Negro became black (?) or African American (??) and so on. You'll have your own opinion as to the true value of this but it was not long before PC started going mad! And always at the hands of the wise on behalf of the oppressed (or the seemingly oppressed) who still hadn't really decided whether they needed it or not.
That has since evolved to the point where a kind of professionally offended and highly vocal elite microcensors every article written, every speech made, every political decision, indeed every stray thought that sees the light of day often to the excruciated embarrassment of those on whose behalf they claim to be acting and the rage of those who consider themselves falsely 'accused' as the very wide brushes that this elite employs tar everyone!
So, to get back to the original question, I do not think it fruitful to go looking for psychological explanations for PC other than the comfort of identity and the simple belief that you are morally correct which is pretty much a given for any and all social, cultural, political and religious groups. There is plenty for philosophers to get stuck into in what is believed without the distraction of personal motivations for believing it!
Necessarily so. The oppressed lack social capital, which means they themselves are generally powerless to change the terms used to define them. That's just the nature of being oppressed. The people who pushed for new words in order to even things out had to be of some social standing to have any influence over any far-reaching social change, and of some intellectual standing to have an influence over linguistic usage, ergo intellectuals and academics.
Quoting Barry Etheridge
It's not a matter of logic. Neither replacing nor retaining the status quo is illogical, but that doesn't mean one choice isn't obviously preferable to the other.. When I was young the term used for the medical condition was "spastic", and that was also one of the terms commonly used to mean "a complete idiot". So, given the choice as a sufferer, you probably would have to be a complete idiot to not prefer "suffering cerebral palsy" or "special needs".
Quoting Barry Etheridge
And before "negro" was acceptable, "nigger" was. So, what's the point here? The move was hardly a bad thing. Of course, it can go too far. I don't know whether "Black" or "African American" is actually the preferred term among members of that group, for example, but obviously "negro" or "nigger" isn't. And the former consideration pales in comparison to the latter.
Quoting Barry Etheridge
The psychological explanation for PC is largely the recognition of the desire for self-esteem among those who would be denied it due to their position in society, and the willingness to help provide the circumstances under which it can be more easily fostered by those who see that as a gift without a price.
Strangely it has emerged that many groups actually prefer to use some of the non-PC terms themselves. One of the UK's leading charities for people with learning difficulties refused for many years to yield to pressure to stop using the term 'mentally handicapped' and still retains a nod to it in its new name. There is a self-help group for the mentally ill which has been involved in a very public effort to 'reclaim' the word 'bonkers', one for the physically disabled that includes 'gimp' in its name, and then there's this!
This is precisely my point. The trouble with being offended on behalf of other people is that it is based on the assumption that you know what is best for them better than they do themselves which can be far more patronising and belittling than any of the allegedly offensive terms and behaviour you are crusading against. The great irony of pc is the great disservice it does to those it claims to be protecting first by failing to consult with them what they actually want in the way of representation and then by attracting attention exclusively to itself in raising the ire of a public that, rightly or wrongly, considers itself falsely accused, further alienates and isolates them.
Far from the altruism that you appear, naively in my opinion, to attribute to the pc brigade, then I am forced to conclude that it is and probably always was primarily self-serving moral superiority.
Nothing than the old scheme of oppression that the New Left has always been peddling. "Don't force us to live the way you want, we'll force you to live the way we want"
It's impossible though. Self-esteem is something internal, not external. The fact they are seeking self-esteem outside of themselves is the problem, not the solution.
You appear to be saying that society is valuing nomos/custom over nature. Much of what is natural in us is forced to sublimate itself in society to customary forces. The naturally stronger gangster is powerless against the weak lady, because violence is against the law.
Men are violent, it is part of our nature as men (self-preservation). The expression of that violence is anger, which cannot be expressed physically in most societies without repercussions that may be equally as physical. The sublimation of violence is found in language used by both strong and weak.
In so far as the ego is constituted by language, it cannot escape it. The feelings the custom/nomos gives words adhere in words, and our reactions to words are normatively anticipated. When you call someone a "no-hoper, dope, space-cadet, weirdo, douchebag", or 'filthy immoral rich, fat cat bastard" these words have commonly understood meanings (which seem to be more spacially then temporally located). They are meant to convey an adverse attitude toward another. While the way you convey your thoughts are particular, the words you use go beyond you and convey what is commonly understood.
Language enables civilized violence. The repression of such expression, I think will lead to further sublimation, at least for the foreseeable future, or until such time as new norms become foundational (if). Perhaps one issue with this...if that subordination of violence to custom means the lack of public expression then it will surface in private conversations, out of the sight of the public...disguising itself, taking on more acceptable public faces. Perhaps it becomes more dangerous when it must grow out of sight.
Made a couple of edits (now in italics) to the last paragraph of my previous post as it was an overly simplistic way to put things. Psychological explanations for social movements are never really straightforward. Re your objection @Agustino, it's only true up to a point, self-esteem is in a very real way limited by social capital.
Lots of people in different contexts use words of opprobrium among themselves. People who've experienced mental distress, for instance, often talk to each other happily about loonies, barminess, being in the bin, fruitcakes and so on. To talk to one's own language community on equal terms is quite different from talking with those outside it who are trying to generalise about you. Jewish jokes are for Jews to tell each other.
There are different rules of politeness whoever you are and whoever you're with. No-one talks to Grandma the way they talk to their friends or their teacher or the driver on the bus. Much of my attempt to stop people being, say, racist in front of me is simply to persuade them to act with social decorum and decency. I think to call my attitude 'political correctness' is an attempt to silence me and justify their rudeness and, by their rudeness, their assertion of power. I'm not having it.
But on the contrary - you will create a new class of power hungry totalitarians who will use the new rules to dominate the world around them, the very same way it had been dominated before. It really doesn't matter - those who seek to be powerful, will use whatever tools exist to make that possible. They will not care what it takes to be powerful - they will not care if they have to curse the "white man" or the "black man" to be powerful - they will do whatever it takes.
"Philosophy is to the real world as masturbation is to sex" -Karl Marx
Alas, poor Marx - he always thought philosophy is better than the real world!
Exactly - now the religious people are oppressed because of the values they hold! What a sham! These politically correct, identity politics cronies, keep forcing down everyone's throats their lack of values - as if all of us should share in their mediocrity. Nietzsche's cry was right: be wary of the Last Men. Screw what they think of you - Saul Alinsky and his radicals never cared they were thought to be rude. They never cared they disturbed others. That's why they've won. We - religious people - have to do the same. Otherwise we cannot win in politics - not against these vulgar folks of no principles.
Something needs to drive no? When you remove morality and virtue from its place, it will definitely be replaced by something. Money and guns are quite possibly the only contenders once virtue is removed.
But I really don't understand this. It's not like your pain is any lessened if you trash the place and can't give a shit about it. It's like telling me that just because you can't get your hands on a good thing, you should take revenge on yourself and the world and drink poison. That is absurd. Why would any rational creature act like that?
Quoting wuliheron
Yes political correctness is there because we have removed the morality.
In the ancient Roman empire the peasants, who were half the population, would routinely riot and storm the palace with knives and pitch forks whenever they starved in the winter knowing that kind of internal unrest is an invitation to invade the state. Claudius the emperor installed a sheltered harbor to ensure they could always bring food in come winter. The Chinese turned rioting into an art form and, to this day, can kowtow with the best of them, only to riot by the millions if for one second they start to believe nobody will prevent them from being seriously exploited.
Money can only do all the driving for any real length of time if it happens to agree with natural law.
Hah! Circus always attracts people. Why do you think the Romans put slaves to fight inside the Colosseum while they watched?
Quoting wuliheron
I agree with this, but this has to do precisely with the fact that we need to bring morality and virtue back.
Morality isn't the issue. In ten years of asking if anyone knows the simple distinction between a lynch mob and a democracy nobody, not even academics, have ever answered correctly. Likewise, I've discovered just by asking people that half the people online are suspicious of the common dictionary and like to make up their own definitions with very few of them even being aware it merely contains popular definitions. You can't have morality or a democracy if nobody can agree upon the meaning of the words.
According to the National Science Foundation, one in five Americans insists the sun revolves around the earth but, what I'd like to know, is how many of them imitate Three Stooges see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil slapstick. Money doing all the driving ensures the lights are on, but nobody is home.
Political correctness is, like cheap grace, inexpensive--free, quite often. One can use the most sensitive language about oppressed and disadvantaged people without having to spend so much as a penny on them.
If we aren't willing to be financially inconvenienced much (if at all) it may be because our heart is not really into costly political correctness. I understand that black people have been systematically exploited and excluded from prosperity for centuries, but in fact I'm not willing to give up anything on their behalf.
What I recognize as unjust puts me into the category of politically correctness, but the amount of my own money I'm willing to spend on helping the oppressed puts me into the category of cheap grace.
I suspect that this is true for most (all?) of us.
I am in favour of marriage equality, and I do not believe that being opposed to it is indicative of bigotry. I accept that most people opposed to it are opposed because of deeply-held religious views. Although I think such views are mistaken and harmful, I see no reason to judge the person that holds them. I'm sure I hold plenty of mistaken views as well, although I hope they are less harmful.
Regarding the damage of debating, let's start by acknowledging that debate is constantly happening anyway. Nobody with credibility in mainstream politics is proposing laws to outlaw debate on this issue, irrespective of the fact that they may see such debate as harmful. One needs a lot more justification than just 'harmful' to go so far as to legally ban an activity. What people are opposed to is creating an unnaturally large focus on the debate by making it the subject of a plebiscite, and maybe even pumping it up further by funding both sides with public money.
Would you agree that there are some subjects that it is harmful to debate? Would you for instance be happy to have a publicly-funded, national plebiscite on a proposal to decriminalise sex with children, or to imprison all Jews?
Assuming you'd agree that debates on those topics are likely to be harmful, the question simply becomes about where one draws the line as to which debates are considered harmful, rather than whether any debate ever could be considered harmful.
Most people would agree that a public debate on those two nasty topics is harmful and is best avoided (but not rendered a crime, in a country where free speech is still highly valued). At the other end of the spectrum, I think most would agree that a debate on whether to change the flag or the top GST tax rate (VAT or sales-tax rate for non-Australians) is not only non-harmful but potentially healthy. There is a big area in between, and different people will draw the line at different places.
In most cases, an accusation of 'political correctness' is simply a complaint that one's interlocutor draws that line at a different place to oneself.
The conservatives view homosexual acts as immoral. The progressives view such criticisms as bigotry. Good luck in finding a middle ground there.
As regards to gay rights, it was previously 'live and let live', but that is no longer sufficient. When gay marriage is legalised we will be obliged to support it, and all those who don't will be ostracised. Remember Brendan Eich?
Get real, Andrew. Both Labor and Greens are claiming that the debate held for a plebiscite will cause 'mental harm' to 'LGBTI people' and 'maybe even suicides'. So canning the plebiscite and passing the law by an act of Parliament is tantamount to 'outlawing debate', or at least, preventing it.
But already I've said too much, I have to stay away from this subject.
Quoting Harry Hindu
That is by the far the most pertinent comment to my OP yet, all the others have been slightly or majorly tangential.
This outlines superbly my statement in the OP about the problem being with the people persecuted and not the people name calling.
I understand what you say about if you are using a term in a perfectly friendly, non-judgemental way, you are still, by definition, wrong. But, that doesn't change the fact the we wouldn't have this absurd and childish problem of just swapping names for other names if they cut the bullshit where it started and that is inside their emotional state.
It is just like Harry Hindu said "the explanation is that the gays that don't take offense have a better self-image than the one's that do take offense." These are the types of people have risen above the bullshit and separated themselves from their negative emotional consequences of being called a name and therefor are exempt. They are above, more developed and superior to the people that take offence
That is a pretty selfish commodity to have. A another function of the egotism the rots our minds in the present day and age. The need to have the feeling of "I am superior", "I am worth something" or even "I am above him, her, that". Yet some of the people on here talk as if it is something desirable in modern society lol, god help them.
Perfect!
Men are violent? No, people are violent! I was saying that all that the law did in that scenario was change the situation around so that the old lady could become passively aggressively violent to the gangster (pointing fingers and raising her voice, scolding etc.) and make herself feel superior to him... yet she walks away without being touched... when in reality that is immoral and if it went down in the jungle she might not be alive.
So in that sense the law works for wrong means and likewise PC does too.
I agree. It will be an ever-cycling loop of swapping out old non-pc terms for PC that end up being used wrongly and so need to swapped out again.
hahaha, thank you for you interest in me... I am feel so flattered and it really rubs my ego up the right way. Now I can go about my day feeling as if I am important and don't need to rely on political correctness to protect me from peoples insults about my life.
For the record though, atheists and theists can agree on many things, including social dynamics, but never religion.
It seems peaceful in principle but as I pointed out in my OP and further posts it ends up working for the wrong means and becomes a way for people to vent their feelings of inferiority by trying to get one up on everyone else. The constant cycling of replacement words is exemplified by that.
Which is what you argue God does to evil doers, and is thus the most just way to handle them, wouldn't you then be saying by implication? It's their fault after all. You're really good at it being different when it's you.
Read the link about Brendan Eich - he was fired as the head of Mozilla Corporation, which he had helped found, because it was discovered that he donated to Proposition 8 some years previously. That is an example of what I mean by 'ostracism'. Under anti-discrimination laws, many people will be required and obliged to support same-sex marriage, whether they want to or not; if they try not to support it, by, for example, not providing services to same-sex weddings, they will be subjected to legal action and even vilification.
I just don't believe that public debate, even if it is raucous or bitter, causes mental harm to the people who are the prospective beneficiaries of the debate. They might not like it, but that's just their tough luck.
There is, however, an outstanding good reason for not submitting questions of liberty and rights to the people as a whole: The people as a whole tend to be much more socially conservative than prospective beneficiaries of initiatives and referenda. This isn't at all surprising. The majority of citizens don't have the problems of minorities--gays, blacks, the mentally ill, and so on. Referenda aiming to extend legal protections to a particular group tend to be voted down. Not always, but frequently.
The bars to legal gay marriage were removed mostly by courts and legislators. This makes sense: judges are generally (but not always) independent of public opinion. It's easier to persuade legislators who number in the low hundreds than to convince citizens who number in the millions. Plus there is always the mechanical problems of this kind of voting.
The Equal Rights Amendment to the US constitution, giving equal rights to women, was introduced into Congress in 1923. Congress passed the ERA in 1972, and in 1982 the period of state ratification ended with 35 states ratifying, where 38 were needed. All of the states that declined ratification were in the old confederacy (except Illinois, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona).
Societies differ not only across nations but over time in terms of people's attitudes. Not only is that self-evident, it has been empirically demonstrated. What you seem to be doing here is taking the obvious truth that some people cannot be made to change their attitudes over short periods of time, and trying to derive the obvious falsity that there is no possibility of development in social attitudes.
Quoting Agustino
I'm not claiming political correctness will rid us of the power hungry.
Quoting intrapersona
Indeed, God help them! Thank goodness you are so above all that! Oops...
Anyway, you've confused self-esteem with arrogance, which, yes, is egotistical. The last sentence in your post is a good example of the latter undesirable trait. Self-esteem is more a matter of having the desirable ones of self-respect and self-confidence.
*And some on the left. Slavoj Zizek is a notable opponent of PC.
Well, if it causes you not to insult and belittle others because of your beliefs, that is all that can be expected from a civil code, and at least it will mean that outwardly, you are at least civil.
Brendan Eich is an interesting case, and it's probably a good one to debate to see where people stand on this issue. It seems to me he was fired directly for ruthless business reasons and only indirectly for supporting proposition 8, which I think poses a problem for those on the right. Being against homosexual rights is a loser in the marketplace of ideas and is therefore a loser in the marketplace proper. For those enamored of markets the question should be asked: "Why should we prop up a losing idea any more than we should prop up a losing product?"
What do you mean? That supporing Proposition 8 was bad for business, so he had to be fired?
Oh, I get it. So when I shop, I should know the position of the company I'm buying from on gay marriage. Maybe we could have a sticker, like they do for kilojoules, or heart safety? You know, a little rainbow flag with a thumbs up. 'Gay friendly', like dolphin-safe tuna.
Really?
'Outlawing debate' means, literally, that those who debate it are outlaws, ie are breaking the law, and will therefore be liable to a criminal punishment.
You know that.
How many anti-(gay-marriage) campaigners have been arrested so far this year in Australia for expressing their views?
BTW do you like my parentheses? That's how far I'm prepared to go to make the point that I don't believe being against gay-marriage means that people are anti-gay! Hyphens are not associative.
Do you agree?
Last year, the Tasmanian Catholic Archdiocese circulated a pamphlet called 'Don't Mess with Marriage'. A lawsuit was launched against it, by an LGBT activist although it was subsequently withdrawn. But it's safe to say, it is, and will remain, a highly litigous area.
Yes, indeed the OP is unclear on this point. The first sentence complains about excessive political correctness, and the video from Joe Rogan is a complaint against people who perpetrate such excesses. Nobody can reasonably deny that there are such people.
But then the last paragraph complains about political correctness without the 'excessive' qualifier. That makes somebody like me, who loathes excessive political correctness, and the sort of sanctimonious point-scoring activity that Rogan is talking about, but is passionately in favour of (what I consider to be) reasonable political correctness, CONFUSED.
If the pamphlet was a sincere and non-hateful expression of deeply-held beliefs, I would class the litigation as 'excessive' political correctness. It's on the other side of where I'd draw the line.
I think the 'excessive' is crucial.
I would like there to be able to be a mature, non-hysterical debate, without either side casting aspersions on the character of the other. But I don't want a plebiscite.
Nobody has offered a plebiscite on right-to-die legislation, an issue that is very dear to my heart. Based on polls, it seems that right-to-die legislation would easily be approved if a plebiscite were held, while it will be a very long time coming if it has to go through parliament, because of (1) the unrepresentatively high number of Christians in parliament and (2) the fear of all politicians of the power of ginger groups like the Australian Christian Lobby.
But I don't blame the failure of governments to hold a plebiscite on this issue on political correctness, or on anything else. I just accept that it's one of the many unfortunate consequences of living in a democracy. As Churchill said, it's the worst form of government, except for the others.
I mean what I said. That's why he was fired. If supporting proposition 8 had been good for business, he wouldn't have been.
Quoting Wayfarer
I made a factual observation. You attack a (rather absurd) proposition. Is there anything I actually said that you disagree with?
So, your 'factual observation' is that Brendan Eich was sacked as the head of Mozilla (Eich being one of the founders of the company, and the inventor of Javascript, for those who might not know), on the basis of the fact that his support for Proposition 8 was 'bad for business'.
Does it follow from that, that what is 'good for business' is, therefore, morally sound?
Yes that's a civil code - I was talking about political correctness. The two are different. The civil code should be there - political correctness shouldn't be a means of artificially legislating something.
The same old progressive tropes in this thread: "stay home, don't vote, while we take your country away, and impose our values on you". Look Ben Carson was right - these progressives don't care - all they want to do really is impose their values on society, they can care less about the religious folks, or tolerance, or anything of this sort. They don't only want to live a certain way - they want all the rest of us to worship and approve of their way of life. And the only reason why they're winning is because they have learned to play the morality card against religious believers. This has got to stop - we have to get smart.
Quoting Wosret
Yes do you think we should go around playing God huh?
Absolutely not*, in my view, but that's precisely the sort of argument that tends to get proffered by those on the right -if not always directly- which was the point of difficulty for them I was getting at. The market is very often presented by conservatives as a kind of a moral arbiter that will come up with the right answer if given the chance, until and unless it's an answer they don't like.
*Though of course the obverse doesn't follow either, that what is good for business, including Eich's firing, is morally unsound.
What I took you to be saying, was that efforts to legislate how one should behave with regards to others, will fail to affect what you really think about them. But the attempt by the polity to legislate what one ought or ought not to think is the origin of 'political correctness'. Political correctness is, after all, the expression of opinions which it is assumed that no right-thinking person ought to hold. So it kind of an assumed consensus.
And what you seem to neglect is that there is a difference between people's attitudes changing over time, and us or anyone else engineering such a change over time. My claim in this case is that we cannot engineer it. Now, the more important point is that while some attitudes do change, the core of people's morality remains the same - regardless of geographical position or time period. Take sexual morality - pretty much identical in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, even though these religions arose in vastly different places, in vastly different circumstances. All condemn adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality, etc. You ignore the fact that some attitudes are perennial - nothing you will do will ever change this.
Quoting Baden
Good so then you think it's good that we institute a mechanism which will only aid the power hungry?
A law can be questioned - that's why ultimately there is nothing wrong with it. Political correctness is self-righteous and self-justifying - it cannot be questioned, hence why there is something wrong with it.
I'm not going to argue with you about who's being more clear about what we're arguing about. I hadn't got on to my personal view of Eich's case yet. I think it's a complicated. Firstly, I don't think that there is anything wrong in principle in sacking a CEO who is homophobic (or racist or etc.) And I think most people would agree with that. I also don't think there is necessarily something wrong with sacking someone who has created the image of themselves as being homophobic (or etc) even if it's not clear that they actually are (a CEO of a business has a responsibility to protect the image of his business, and part of that responsibility is to protect his own image). Eich's case is difficult because his opposition to proposition 8 along with other actions he had taken in the past could be seen to have created the perception that he was homophobic. On the other hand, that perception was based on a quickly changing Zeitgeist with regard to homosexual rights; and an environment where talented people are barred from being CEOs because of something they did in the past, which was less objectionable then but has become more so now, could be deemed more regressive than progressive.
Also, Eich wasn't actually sacked, he resigned in the end because he had lost the battle to clear himself of the charge of homophobia. So, there is an argument to be made that the attacks on him were fair game- that gay activists and their supporters have a right to look out for their interests, and that it was up to him to look out for his interests by presenting a strong enough defense against them, which in the end he didn't. Unfortunately in public ideological battles the truth tends to get lost on both sides, so I think the question of whether Eich is actually homophobic or not is beyond anyone's knowledge here. If he is, he deserved his fate; if he isn't, he didn't.
Quoting Agustino
I think it would be good if we instituted a mechanism where loaded questions were automatically deleted by the software here.
Dead right. Which is exactly the same as what the conservatives want to do. So we are in honourable opposition to one another in the marketplace of ideas, and the one that can wield rhetoric the most effectively will win. I hope it's my side, and I expect you hope it's yours.
Quoting AgustinoThis too is true. I care a great deal about some conservatives, despite my disagreeing with them. Some of them are friends, some are family, and I love them. So it's certainly true that I could care less than I currently do about them.
Or did you mean to say 'they can't care less about the religious folks', which would be a way of saying they don't care about them at all.
Political Correctness's targets are segments of the population, The prevailing powers dictate and provide cogent reason for what is 'correct' or 'not-correct' to say or do. Correct here means according to them. The Establishment, is in a meaning full way (what is the cost of a gallon of milk?) unconscious of the common man, the very persons with whom Trump has tried to identify. The incestuousness of the Establishment's thought may be its ultimate downfall, my guess.
Why isn't being defined as a "minority" offensive? I would be offended at being defined as a minority which then implies that I need this redistribution of resources. It belittles me and makes me feel more inferior. The fact is everyone has been turned down by a job, has been called a name and has been on the receiving end of racism and sexism. There is also the fact that not all "minorities" are offended by this kind of speech. Only some are - and this difference needs to be accounted for - not discredited - if you actually want to get at the truth of why people are offended.
Who's playing? :D
People say that, but I think that not being a selfish, oppressive Pharisee has always been a more important tradition.
Social capital is either distributed equally or it's not. If it's not then your personal offense at it being redistributed in your favour is outweighed by the lack of offense other members of minority groups feel at it being redistributed in theirs. It's generally easier to get over being advantaged than being disadvantaged.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No, that is not a fact.
Quoting Harry Hindu
What kind of speech, exactly? It would be a mistake to lump all non-PC speech together as if it has a singular effect. People are offended by different things at different levels. Very few people are not offended by any kind of racist or sexist speech, for example. If you aren't, good for you. But that doesn't mean you should get to decide that other people shouldn't be offended by it.
The question we were discussing was whether the opposition to a plebiscite was based on the desire to suppress or avoid a public debate on the issue - not whether a plebiscite is a good idea.
But I think the real issue is that, discussion of whether same-sex marriage ought to be legalised implies that there is something about it that needs to be discussed. But then, it seems to be assumed that anyone who opposes must be, 'anti-gay', i.e. homophobic. So allowing discussion is distressing to the gay community because it allows 'the homophobes' to have their say. And as the point of the legislation is to provide the gay community with approbation and support, then it is cruel and inhumane to even discuss it.
There's a story about this very point in relation to the Irish referendum in today's SMH. (Also some salient commentary on the same by Brendan O'Neill, here.)
Quoting WayfarerNo thanks. Brendan O'Neill is in my William Lane Craig category. In the past I read plenty of what he wrote because he was clearly intelligent and I wanted to understand the views of somebody that was intelligent but had a different view from me. But after a while I realised that the intelligence was simply directed towards trying to ram his prejudices down other people's throats, so I decided to waste no more time on any of his (Craig's or O'Neill's) outpourings. Why would I spend time reading such a thing when I've not yet read Breakfast at Tiffany's?
If I want to hear some intelligent commentary from the right I go to William S Buckley, GK Chesterton or Auberon Waugh. The fact that they are all long gone says something sad about the state of public debate. I used to rate Gerard Henderson, but he jumped the shark around the middle of Howard's prime ministership.
More than that: to oppose is to actively call for gay relationships to be considered lesser. This is what is considered inhuman. The issue is not merely that people might get "offended" or "distressed," but that opposition to same-sex marriage is a denial of value and right to gay people. It is, itself, anti-gay. They aren't assumed to be homophobic. Their policy is inherently so.
To make the point clear, with this policy and value, the gay Christian is unable to have there relationship recognised under God. Its entire point is to discriminate against gay people.
The problem is that even if there is a plebiscite it is not likely there will be any rational public debate on the issue; just the usual trumpet-blowing of the partisans on either side that will probably be the substance of at least the 'against' if not the 'for' ad campaigns, each estimated to cost $10,000,000, and each designed to convert the other side; but which will arguably only be 'preaching to the converted" and a total waste of taxpayers' money that could be spent far more wisely elsewhere. This is not to mention the $160,000,000 estimated cost of the plebiscite itself.
Here are some poll figures:
Galaxy Research polling (2009-2012) shows:
64% of Australians support marriage equality,
A majority of Christians (53%) support marriage equality,
76% of Coalition voters want Abbott to allow a conscience vote,
75% believe the reform is inevitable, and
81% of young people (18-24 years) support marriage equality.
These figures are a significant advance on 2004 figures, when a Newspoll commissioned by SBS found that 38% of Australians supported the reform.
Other polls, not commissioned by AME:
SMH/Nielsen poll, December 2011: 81% of Australians want Coalition MPs to have a conscience vote on marriage equality.
SMH/Nielson poll, November 2011: 62% of Australians support marriage equality.
News Ltd poll, mid-August 2011: 7 in 10 Australians support marriage equality.
Roy Morgan poll, early August 2011: 78% of Australians believe the institution of marriage is still necessary.
Roy Morgan poll, early August 2011: 68% of Australians support marriage equality.
News Ltd poll, December 2010: 65% of Australians support marriage equality or don’t mind either way.
Polling of gay & lesbian community on marriage equality:
Not Yet Equal Report, 2005: 98% want legal recognition of same sex relationships.
All Love is Equal Report, 2007: 86.3% want to have the right to marry.
Not so Private Lives Report, 2010: 54.7% overall would marry if they could.
Not so Private Lives Report, 2010: 80.8% of those with children <5 would marry if they could.
Not so Private Lives Report, 2010: 66.7% of 18-19 year olds would marry if they could.
Not so Private Lives Report, 2010: 62.8% of 20-29 year olds would marry if they could.
Not Yet Equal Report, 2005: Only 15% would have a civil union if it were available.
Homosexual relationships are already recognized in much the same ways as heterosexual relationships when it comes to the civil laws governing de facto relationships.
Many marriages are secular civil unions today anyway where the actual ceremonies are not conducted in Church or other religious institutions.
Under marriage equality laws churches will not be compelled to marry any couple.
It is all about equality under the law. Prejudice against someone on account of their sexuality is bigotry as much as prejudice against them on account of gender or skin colour is. This is not something that even should be thought to be up for debate, under any reasoned view.
So, the proposed plebiscite is a bad idea because it will be an egregiously wasteful drain on the public purse, and the self-righteous conservative campaign will arguably offend or even hurt innocent people by implicit or explicit vilification. Wayfarer and Agustino; I bet you would sing a different tune if your sons or daughters were gay.
What I have said might seem somewhat off-topic, because it doesn't deal directly with PC. But PC despite its excesses (which are usually due to overweening attentiveness to any behavior which might be thought to even carry a whiff of vilification, and which in some cases does arguably stifle debates which need to be had) is designed to protect innocents from being vilified on account of merely being who they are. Let's not forget that it is innocent people not institutions that need protection from the common human tendency to indulge in bullying and mindless hatred.
That's not even true in the case of all churches today.
For sure... but I was talking about the values and policy which oppose same-sex marriage.
The point being that there is judgment and discrimination within the policy itself. Many people have this idea that their values don't have anything to do with how people are treated. So long as, for example, that doesn't think gay people should be killed, locked-up or prevented from having relationships, they think they aren't being discriminatory. It's not true.
Marriage occupies a particular value of social acceptance. To oppose same-sex marriage is to deny gay people that value.
That is exactly the point. So acceptance is declared 'the new normal'; those who don't accept it are now declared on the outer, as I said before. You will find that ultimately, those opposing it will be criminalised or at any right their right to express an opposing view will be suppressed, via anti-discrimination legislation.
There was an important strategy paper, published by a gay advocacy group in 1987, called 'The Overhauling of Straight America', by Madsen and Kirk (Madsen published it under a pseudonym Erastes Pill.) The substance was later published as a book called After the Ball (1989). Both the article and the book can be found online.
It laid out the method for driving public acceptance of gays through a series of five steps.
One of the main steps was to change the perception of gays from being deviants, to being a beleaguered cultural minority like african americans and blacks.
The second part of this strategy was to compare critics (called 'homo-haters') with Klu Klux Klan or racist policemen. The effect of this would be to make critics of the movement appear as intolerant bigots who would be embarrassed to speak out.
This strategy has been very effective. In many of the Western democracies, being gay is now understood as being a matter of cultural identity.
The fact that public acceptance has changed so much in the last two decades is simply an indication of how effective that strategy has been.
There is nothing wrong with being outcast on account of holding egregiously unreasonable views, it is something the individual can avoid if they want; what is wrong is being outcast on account of one's nature, which cannot be avoided; this is the wrong which itself constitutes the very essence of an egregiously unreasonable view, that makes one worthy of being outcast.
Indeed. And they are exactly right. This is not merely political rhetoric. It's description of social relations to our policies, ideologies and values. The people in question are intolerant bigots.
If someone is opposing gay marriage, they have to stand-up and say: "Gay people don't deserve to be married. Their relationships don't have the value required of marriage." No longer can they stand behind ignorance, denial of the discrimination or the fantasy they aren't doing anything to gay people.
The description of society, value and power is actually separate to the question of what ought to be done. We could, for example, argue such discrimination against gay people was correct if we were so inclined. But, given our philosophy of liberal democracy, such arguments only palatable to an authoritarian fringe-- many of people oppose to same-sex marriage cannot be honest about their own beliefs because it entails the realisation it's bigoted or a loss of public support because violation of an individual rights is one of the biggest injustices in our liberal democracy.
But to say that is, as Willow demonstrates above, to be labelled as intolerant bigots. So, again, this is because the strategy has worked; it's fait accompli as far as the Western liberal democracies are concerned.
Those are bigoted. In each case, the heterosexual relationship is given superior value which makes it deserving marriage. Unlike those deficient gay people who simply don't have enough complementary biology, sociological and cultural significance to qualify for such esteem. The concept itself is discriminatory against gay people.
This is not becasue the "strategy had worked." It's a description of values and power expressed our understanding of people. The "strategy working" is only measure of politics, of how effective the campaign for gay rights has been. Questions of bigotry and discrimination run deeper. In the understanding and actions towards particular people. To oppose same sex-marriage was just as discriminatory or bigoted at any point in history as it is now.
The relevant question is not "who is considered intolerant now," but whether there is bigotry or discrimination against particular people,
No, it doesn't. Discrimination is not dependent of what's behaviourally normative. It's an act of denying someone value or power (sometimes there are just instances of discrimination-- e.g. taking the gun off someone threatening to kill someone).
To say that there's no discrimination in denying same-sex marriage doesn't make it so. That's just to play with perceptions. No matter what you call it, to say gay people aren't worth of marriage is to deny them particular value, it's to deny them access to the social institution of marriage. It's to say them and their relationships have less significance.
There's not a question of "redefinition." It's one of whether we are honest about what we think of people.
But that's only one interpretation of the meaning of marriage; an interpretation which justifies itself on the basis of what is supposedly 'natural' for the majority. Deviation from this by a minority is not, in virtue of that, shown to be unnatural for the minority.
A better interpetation of the meaning of marrigae is that it represents the commitment of people to one another on the basis of love (which usually, but not always, involves sexual love).
You haven't said whether you think you would hold a different opinion if your child was gay. Are you prepared to answer that question honestly?
The other point at issue is freedom of expression. I know that the traditionalist viewpoint is generally characterised as 'bigotted' - notice Willow's responses above, and I'm, sure the majority of contributors would agree. And that, I am saying, goes back to the conscious strategy on the part of gay advocacy movements in the US in the 1980's and 90's to redefine their identity as a cultural minority, and the identity of critics as 'bigots'. It has worked.
But is it not by definition a case of bigotry to discriminate against anyone on account of what they are?
Also it seems you are thinking of marriage in the context of tradtional religious interpretations and today marriage has generally, and not only in regard to the issue of homosexual marriage, become such as to no longer inherently associated with the churches and other religious institutions.
The point you make about people being discriminated against 'on account of who they are' - that is what I am saying has been the basis of the way the debate has been shaped and why it is so embedded in 'identity politics' - it is because behaviors have been redefined as cultural identity.
Of course, to say that will be regarded as the absolutely worst kind of homophobia. I am attempting a critical analysis here, but what I'm saying is terribly non-PC and I know that. But, it's a debate about political correctness, surely this issue is central to it.
Don't you feel that rests on an assumption that one chooses what one believes? If so, do you think that assumption is defensible?
I don't feel I have a choice in what I believe. I could not for instance start to believe in the Yahweh of the Bible, or in Dianetics, or in leprechauns. I could pretend. But I would know I was pretending.
I don't believe that a fundamentalist Christian whose non-Church-attending son is living with a partner unmarried, chooses to believe that their son will burn in hell. Most likely they are tortured by that belief and would much rather be free of it.
Evelyn Waugh (to name another old-school, highly intelligent conservative, of the type that is so hard to find these days - other than Wayfarer of course) depicted this so poignantly in the closing chapters of Brideshead Revisited. Julia desperately loved Charles and longed to continue their relationship. But she could not shake her belief that it was wrong to do so because she had been married to her ex-husband Rex in a RC church, so that in the eyes of God she was still married to him, so that to be with Charles was a terrible sin.
Perhaps it comes back to the issue of free will. It seems to me that we each believe what we do because it is in our nature to do so. In light of that, it is as unkind to ostracise and vilify somebody for being a conservative Christian as it is to do so because they are black or gay. By all means argue against the views, try to change them and try to prevent their propagation and implementation. But let's never lose sight of the fact that the one with whom we are arguing is a vulnerable, sentient creature like all others, and may have as much power to change what they believe as an ichneumon wasp does to change its horribly cruel method of reproducing.
It's not just the way the debate has been shaped; It's also about who people are. To say: "the two genders have different but complementary roles that are basic to the definition" is to deliberately exclude gay people.
The point of your position here is to exclude gay people from marriage. A discrimination: heterosexual people get marriage, gay people do not.
The use behaviour as cultural identity is not being introduced by gay activist. You are already using it in the context of "complementary roles that are basic to the definition." Heterosexuals get marriage on account of their biological, cultural and social difference. Gay people not, for they don't meet this standard of cultural identity through behaviour.
I think the problem is that it ignores the responsibility of our choices in responding to someone. Appeals to "nature" or "choice" remove the role of the actor in a a situation. In this case, we get the nice falsehood that outcasts have nothing to do with our actions. Whether we call it "choice" or "nature," it's them who are at fault for being ostracised. We ignore our responsibility.
To ostracise is never the act of the transgressor (if there is even one in the first place). It's a social response to the transgressor. We are the ones who do it, not them. Any acts, for example, against opponents of gay marriage are ours, not a inevitable outcome of their unethical positions and behaviour. The question is of how we respond (and ought to respond), not that someone transgressed. Punishment is a different question to sin.
That's not 'my definition', Willow, it's not peculiar to me. Up until the last 5 minutes (speaking metaphorically) everyone saw it like that.
My point is not the people thought otherwise. It's that definition is discriminatory against gay people. Anyone who holds that position understands gay relationships to be lacking the value required for marriage.
Rather than a new rhetoric of gay activists, this discrimination is embedded within the definition everyone used to hold-- they proudly announce it: gay people don't have the "biological, cultural and social nature" to be allowed marriage.
But what we are now told is that 'gender is a social construction', and that those who hold that there is a biological or any other reason for gender complementarity, are guilty of 'hetero-normativity'. So this is very much a part of 'blurring the boundaries', not only of what constitutes acceptable behaviuor, but choosing one's own sexual identity.
So therefore it's incumbent the progressives to impress upon children at a young age that 'gender' is not actually a biological given, but it is something that they can choose.
Illustrative case from the Sydney media:
I'm not debating the question of procreation here. We are in agreement there. My point is using that definition do deny people marriage is inherently discriminatory. It denies gay people marriage on the basis their bodies can't procreate with each other. Gay relationships and people are held in lesser esteem because they don't procreate in this way.
Heteronormativity is a description of this discrimination. It refers to a culture which values heterosexuality at the expense and exclusion of anyone else.
So here you are guilty of heteronormativity. You think it's a great thing. Marriage is supposed to be only for those who can procreate with their bodies. Under this position, gay people are meant to be discriminated against because their lack of procreation makes them unsuitable for marriage.
Gender is a social construction, but that's a different issue, for it doesn't specify the value of any particular sort of relationship. It doesn't undo any difference or capacity of biology either. Only queer and/or non-binary individuals with certain biological traits, for example, can procreate with their bodies. Bodies do what they do regardless of gender identity.
So do you think this should be subject to legal sanction?
From what you've said so far, no. Legal sanctions ought to be reserved for stuff like hate crimes.
But the point is you don't seem recognise you own prejudice (whether it is just or not). You are acting like what you are saying isn't discriminatory towards gay people, as if that idea was merely rhetoric cooked-up by gay rights activists. How can you say this when the nature of marriage you are talking about proudly announces that gay people don't have a place within it? It's success is measured by gay people being denied marriage and the associated value which comes with that-- the entire point is a discrimination against gay people, to maintain the heteronormative tradition (at least insofar as marriage).
Even if you are right, it's still discriminatory towards gay people.
In this matter, there is room for diversity in everything except for opinion.
//edit// so, you have simply made the point I started out with in this thread - that 'all opposition is prejudice'.
This old gay guy has always thought that "marriage" exclusively applied to heterosexual couples. I remember how gay right advocacy developed from the very early 1970s on into the 80s, 90s, and to the present. The radical position of early gay liberationists did not support anything beyond voluntary committed gay relationships, if that, even. Some gay-leftists thought monogamy deplorably bourgeois. (Jack Baker and Michael McConnell did apply for and received a marriage license in Minnesota in 1970 -- something of a slight of hand -- and were "married". A court promptly dismissed the license and the coupling. Baker and McConnell are still together.)
By the early 1980s, a strong assimilationist influence emerged. The new view deplored all that loose screwing around; it was not respectable, it was scandalous, and we all needed to just cool it -- at least stop frightening the horses and shocking middle class people. Then AIDS came along, which provided heavy armaments for the argument that all us gays needed to shape up. (Of course, what we needed to do was practice effective harm reduction in sex, not engage in matrimony.)
When the multi-drug cocktails turned AIDS into a difficult but manageable disease and ended the rolling tragedy, gays became more accepted. As legal protections were more widely established, gay rights advocates needed fresh frontiers to maintain their positions within the gay community. (People don't really try to work themselves out of a job.) Marriage was the next obvious target for the advocacy enterprise. Progress was fairly rapid, and gay marriage was accepted here and there, and rejected by this and that state, setting up the SCOTUS decision.
"Marriage" never applied to any relationship except heterosexual unions overseen by the church or the courts. Fine by me.
You aren't thinking beyond whether other people are saying your position is wrong. Here is is you that define the prejudice. It's your position (whether rightly or wrongly) that discriminates against gay people. I'm saying you are unwilling to admit your exclusion of gay people here.
Any opposition is prejudice because the point of it is to exclude gay people. If gay people cannot married (as heterosexual people do), then things are they are meant to be. The traditional order is preserved and no deviant gays are admitted to the hallowed hall of marriage.
This exclusion is what you are advocating for. It's not newfound gay rights activist rhetoric. You want to discriminate against gay people by excluding them from marriage.
To say you are not prejudiced is to contradict your own position. On the one hand you say that gay people should be excluded and that is great (i.e. marriage for those who can procreate with their bodies), yet on the other you insist aren't denying gay people a value and right (marriage).
There is a good reason for the "heteronormative tradition": men and women can not conceive without each other, and they succeed best in a stable married relationship. Gay men, particularly, have no particular reason to imitate the valuable social structure which facilitates conceiving and rearing children. If "Gay men don't have time to do their own ironing!", as one lively gay guy observed about my ironing board, they certainly don't have time to raise children.
I'm not especially in favor of gay men adopting children; lesbians either. It isn't that two guys can't raise a child. Single fathers have done it; single mothers have done it. Call me old fashioned, but I think there is good reason to think that the vast majority of children who are heterosexual benefit the most from being raised within an at least reasonably happy heterosexually coupled home. And heterosexuals conveniently produce an adequate supply of homosexuals. Just keep production at around 2.8-3% exclusively gay children, on up to 10% more-or-less-gay-at-least-some-of-the-time children.
Gay men who want to conquer heteronormative territory give up an essentially male life style which has value in itself to gay men, as well as to society as a whole. It isn't as if there aren't enough people in the world, just in terms of quantity, that we need more ways of producing them.
The issue of heteronormative tradition doesn't have much to do with any of that. It's defined by disrespect for other identities and relationships, not the absence of heterosexual ones.
Unless you go into conspiracy territory that valuing other relationships is going to wipe out heterosexuals through cultural influence, heterosexuality and its children aren't touched by erosion of heteronormativity.
I don't have any statistics at hand (they exist, however). Yes, I would say the rate of successful long term relationships is sort of low. Why?
I can't speak for gay communities on the coasts, to where a lot of gay men move, but in mid-continent cities like Minneapolis the size of the active gay community is not all that large--it never has been. So the number of potential partners is not huge. A fair number of gay men are loners. It isn't that they are anti-social, it's just that they are not prepared for the negotiation, flexibility, patience, endurance, and forbearance that any long relationship requires. Alcohol and drug use, as well as health issues (AIDS among them) decrease the readiness of some people to enter into a close relationship.
There are now quite a few non-alcoholic/non-drug venues where gay men can meet each other, everything from gay sports groups to coffee shops to gay churches. But sober people don't automatically make good partners.
Maybe most important, the culture of the gay male community hasn't traditionally valued monogamy. Some couples have managed occasional sexual relationships on the side, and some haven't.
A lot of gay men, at least, haven't looked far enough forward to grasp that being old and isolated is not a good deal. Single men, whether they are straight or gay, don't do as well in measures of health and longevity as women do, and the men who do well over time stay connected with other people, whether in sexual relationships, friendships, or working relationships.
I agree that there are biological differences between the sexes; that is obvious and indisputable; but I think each individual manifests a balance of gender characteristics. The human condition is not as simplistic as to be able to say that all men are, or should be, all masculine and all women are, or should be, all feminine.
I think the social and cultural gender roles are not fixed; they can change, should change and do change in accordance with the times. So while it's maybe right to say that roles in relationship should be "complementary", I would take that in the sense, not of fixed complementaries, but in the sense of roles being supplementary to each other; each providing the necessities for life that the other does not. But there's nothing wrong, for example, if the man takes care of the house and looks after the children while the woman works, if that arrangement suits a particular couple; or if the roles are not fixed in a situation, but switching back and forth. for example.
" People being discriminated against on account of who they are" means that they are ostracized (which means being cast out to some degree from the human circle in the sense that they are not accorded the same rights as the majority) on the basis of behaviors that are natural expressions of their natures; where the behavior in question is not of a criminal character. I shall have more to say about this in my reply to andrewk
If we are going to debate about PC I think it helps to give an account of the kinds of ways in which it steps outside the bounds of its usefulness as a social corrective and really does stifle debates that really should be had. For me and example of this would be that those who disagree with the militant actions of Israel, or think that it was a bad idea to restore the homeland to the Jews are accused of being anti-semites.
I don't have children, and I'm not gay; in fact to be honest the thought of having sex with a man disgusts me; but the thought of eating certain foods also disgusts me, and I no more expect others to be disgusted about homosexual sex, than I expect them to be disgusted by the thought of eating those foods that I happen to find disgusting. So, I can't see any rational grounds to diminish the accordance of civil rights to anybody on account of their sexual preferences (provided they don't include children or minors, as defined by our laws) and that would include the right to marry under civil law.
In view of this, what I see as, inalienable right that consenting adults have to do whatever they jointly consent to I cannot see any moral judgement being passed on such activities as rationally warranted, and as being anything other than an expression of simple prejudice, and hence bigoted. I don't believe this has anything more to do with how the debate has been framed in the case of homosexual marriage than it would be if the question was about whether, for example, coloured people should be allowed to marry.
Now you might want to argue that even if one does feel sexually attracted only to those of one's own gender, that one does not have to express that attraction by acting on it; by I think this is a bogus argument because it is unreasonable to expect someone to suppress the expression of their sexuality unless such an expression would be of a criminal nature. Who wants to live without sex? And the important question is: who should be expected to? Only, I would argue, pedophiles (if they cannot be attracted to anyone who is not a child) because in that case the projected sexual partner is not qualified to consent.
I believe that one can choose what to believe; in fact I believe that one's present beliefs are the result of many past small more or less rational decisions about what to accept and what to reject. So, one cannot change one's significant beliefs in an instant, but significant beliefs are the outcome of one's freedom. And one can always choose for other reasons to act contrary to one's genuine beliefs; and this would usually be counted as immoral (unless one's genuine beliefs are anti-social).
If one cannot choose what to believe then one cannot really choose any action at all; which would mean that one is never responsible for one's actions. But even under this presumption we still must ostracize those whose actions are criminal or anti-social; and I would say that the promotion of vilification based on unreasonable condemnation of the non-criminal behavior of others would be a case of at least anti-social, if not criminal, behavior.
That is 'what consenting adults do in private'. The argument when homosexual acts were de-criminalised was that society had no business policing what individuals do in private. That is perfectly fair. But same-sex marriage is another matter. What it amounts to is that that public approval is now compulsory. It's not enough to live and let live; we are required to approve. Because, that is a moral judgement, and one that we will all be compelled to accept!
I agree that nobody chooses to be gay; and I also believe that anyone who is, has a right to express themselves as they see fit; it's a free society, and we can be glad of that. But they can't command me to agree. So if my 'not agreeing' amounts to 'bigotry', then so be it.
I don't set the bar, society sets it. Anyway, I think I've said before on this forum that I don't believe that simply being against gay marriage makes you a homophobe. Being averse to gay people simply because they are gay on the other hand does. And yes, why wouldn't I classify that with racism, which is almost exactly analagous?
So be it, Amen. Not being allowed to call folks homophobes, racists, misogynists and bigots would be political correctness gone mental health issue.
But you aren't allowed to call certain people these things, and if you do, in several countries in the West, you risk being accused of hate-crime.
Of course that is far better than what will happen to you if you point out those flaws in other countries.
Exactly. In denying gay people marriage, you exclude them and their relationships from public approval. They understood to be of lesser value, to not be an appropriate part of our society. It's prejudice and discrimination.
Why would you need a public institution for that?
What countries? Being called a hate criminal is of course totally legitimate, unless you are one of the PC brigade. But at least in the UK a hate crime is a criminal act motivated by hatred of a minority group, and 'not being allowed' means there being a law against it, such that a well founded 'accusation' will lead to arrest and prosecution. So let's have some cases, or I might call you a bullshitter.
And when I say 'cases' I mean to exclude libel and slander cases, because not being allowed to make false accusations is no part of political correctness.
In UK you stand a good chance of being accused of a hate-crime if you draw a certain character, or point out that a certain religion teaches homophobia, paedophilia, or bigotry.
Perhaps an unconscious cause of PC lies in the difference between public and private conversations and how each of these discourses subvert each other, without our noticing it.
Show me a legal case, or admit that your complaint is simply that folks call you names when you call them names.
Mr Corbyn has to defend himself against the charge of anti-semitism on a regular basis. I find it distasteful, but neither he nor his accusers face any legal sanction. but if you point out that a certain religion teaches paedophilia, then you are not calling anyone out individually, but calling out a whole group in an indiscriminate way that might well be deemed incitement to hatred, which is a crime.
But this is not political correctness, it is a reasonable restriction of free speech in the interest of public safety.
You seem unaware of the Macpherson Report, subsequent to which it has been deemed by the Metropolitan Police, and perhaps all police forces in UK, that "any offence which is perceived to be Islamophobic by the victim or any other person, that is intended to impact upon those known or perceived to be Muslim" will be treated as hate-crime.
This of course leaves the door wide open. If you happen to express the view that the worship of a paedophile is alien to Western civilisation, you may well find yourself numbering among the hate-crime statistics.
I'm not about to trawl through the huge increase of Islamophobic crimes that have occurred recently, particularly since the explosion in them surrounding Brexit, but certain notable crimes serve as a good example. Several people in UK have been arrested and sentenced for burning the Quran. Nobody has been arrested for treating the Bible in the same way. In fact, it is only ever non-Muslims who are prosecuted for burning a Quran, because under British law, Muslims are allowed to do that, because Muslims are allowed to burn the Quran under Sharia.
But Zizek appears to have no clue. PC *is* a traditional authority. Cross it and you could loose everything. Hence German men allowed 1,200 German women to be sexually assaulted in Cologne in a single night.
But I stiil can't see the reasoning behind why, if you respect their right to do what they will in private, you also think that they should be deprived of the right to marriage equality on the basis of 'what they do in private'.
Are you saying that even though you respect their right you nonetheless disapprove of what they do? If that were so then you would be saying that you desire their disqualification from enjoying marriage equality before the law on the basis of your disapproval; that you are not prepared to extend their right to do what they will in private to its logical conclusion; which is a right to enjoy the same legal privileges attendant upon that right to a private life as the rest of us.
Perhaps, but what Zizek suggests appears much closer to what the OP is talking about. What happened in Germany was overtly against the law. Not being PC is not against the law (at least in the US), yet it can also have severe societal consequences.
Wikipedia definition of political correctness
The perpetrators in Germany are the "marginalized group" who went beyond insult or any sense of the term politically correct from what I read. It became a question of the strong assaulting the weak overtly, physically, sexually with no thought to any kind of political correctness. The police information suggested that the majority of the men committing these crimes were new immigrants, also the Wikipedia article suggests that these attacks were were the responsibility of newly arrived immigrants.
Interestingly, the German government was not proactive in these situations. The government apparently does not want to exacerbate racial tensions beyond where they stand, which might be some kind of a reverse political correctness, but it is an untenable position, which could lead to very violent backlashs against all migrants,
I'm not about to take your word for any of this, particularly as it is incoherent.
Quoting Cavacava
And there we have it. Political correctness consists in not kicking a man when he's down, often considered to be taken to extremes by folks that think that not kicking men when they are down is a terrible imposition on their rights. Folks who like to kick men when they are down are then claiming to be a disadvantaged minority being discriminated against.
And that is how fucking pathetic this debate is. Myself, as a left wing liberal fascist bigot, I will continue to delight in calling out those that think it is their right to kick men when they are down and cut them down and kick them. I am just that kind of asshole.
Perhaps you can explain why a British man, born and raised in UK, walked free from Court because the judge accepted his plea that he was unaware that raping a 13 year old girl was illegal?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html
Then there are these cases of arrests for burning a book:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/31/arrested-for-burning-a-koran-19-year-old-bailed-and-moved-away-for-own-safety/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378172/Andrew-Ryan-jailed-70-days-setting-Koran-What-burning-poppies.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332877/Girl-arrested-Facebook-footage-Koran-burning-school.html
But of course Sharia law is already part of the British legal system via the Arbitration Act 1996.
'This is a case of theatrical bigotry. It was pre-planned by you as you stole the book deliberately. You went out to cause maximum publicity and to cause distress.'
He told Ryan that people were entitled to protest but not in the manner he chose. The court heard the defendant had six public order convictions between 2002 and 2010 including racial chanting at a football match and assault with intent to resist arrest.
Nothing to do with Sharia law, nothing to do with political correctness, everything to do with incitement.
And you are pretty close to theatrical bigotry yourself in defending this behaviour.
Then of course there are the tragic cases of the fathers who were arrested by police for trying to rescue their daughters from rape-gangs in Rotherham, England. The police preferring to leave the girls to be raped.
These cases are detailed in the Independent Inquiry into child exploitation in Rotherham, England by Prof. Alexis Jay OBE. Prof. Jay found that there were at least 1,400 victims of Muslim rape gangs in Rotherham between 1997-2013.
The report is available here:
http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham
Some findings of the report:
[b]"Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."
"Those who had involvement in CSE were acutely aware of these issues and recalled a general nervousness in the earlier years about discussing them, for fear of being thought racist."
"Agencies should acknowledge the suspected model of localised grooming of young white girls by men of Pakistani heritage, instead of being inhibited by the fear of affecting community relations. People must be able to raise concerns without fear of being labelled racist."
[/b]
Though, I believe Jay's report was reported in the "Daily Mail", so you may wish to denigrate the 1,400 victims further by ignoring it.
Quoting unenlightened
Where did I defend any such behaviour?
It's not that interesting really. No more interesting than that homosexuals can use words like 'faggot' and 'queer' without sounding homophobic, where heterosexuals are less likely to be able to. There is no law against burning the Quran, any more than there is a law against waving a knife about. But there is a law against threatening behaviour and against incitement of hatred. Do such things in the comfort of your own home by all means, but make a public display, and it is a different matter.
[quote=report]"Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."
"Those who had involvement in CSE were acutely aware of these issues and recalled a general nervousness in the earlier years about discussing them, for fear of being thought racist."[/quote]
Here at last is something worth thinking about. You see the same kind of pressure being applied to anyone who is critical of Israeli policy. Such hasty judgements serve to shut down debate, and in this case stifle proper investigation. In the case of Israel, it looks to me as if there is somewhat of a deliberate attempt to delegitimise any criticism of their policy, which is abhorrent; in Rotherham I'm not sure if it is that, or more of an internalised fear of seeming racist?
The phrase 'without fear or favour' comes to mind. There is no argument but that prejudice has been and remains the major problem, but nevertheless, fear of the stigma of prejudice can and does lead to bending over backwards. I can only commend to folks to be open to both possibilities in themselves and others.
Quoting tom
Well if you did not mean to defend it, then I fail to see why you brought it into the discussion.
I'll pass on your condolences to the 1,400 victims of Muslim gang rape and their families. Lives wrecked at the altar of Political Correctness.
And I'm in favour of Quran burning apparently.
Now, you are either innumerate of callous not to appreciate the industrial scale gang-rape of white, mostly underage girls by predominately Asian men. Rotherham is not unique in this matter, and as you so rightly point out,
It is worth noting at this point that the Asian population of Rotherham is only 3%, which means that only ~1% of the population is Asian and of raping age. 11 people have been sent to prison for these crimes, 2 of them non-Muslim women.
That is 155 victims per rapist! The only way that is possible is if political correctness gets in the way of justice.
Here is the scale of the problem wrought by Political Correctness:
http://pmclauth.com/PMCLAUTH/sentenced/Grooming-Gang-Statistics/Gangs-Jailed?widget=BASIC&start=101&limit=100
In some situations one may be unjustly verbally attacked for asking questions about the Prophet's history. I think it's a symptom of underlying stress. I found that moving on from that and pursuing some facts helped me lay the issue to rest. It surprised me that discovering the pertinent facts wasn't as easy as I thought it would be.
I'd advise against looking for answers on a forum like this. People will line up to give you incorrect information (while condemning you for asking). Read a good book about the history of Islam.
So in addition to the 1,400 white, underage victims of Muslim gang-rape in Rotherham, there were some Muslim victims of sexual abuse. It is a tragedy that, in the end, Political Correctness fails everyone.
Shall we move on to Rochdale? Take your pick:
http://pmclauth.com/PMCLAUTH/sentenced/Grooming-Gang-Statistics/Gangs-Jailed?widget=BASIC&start=101&limit=100
Yes, live and let live, so long as letting live doesn't get in the way of you living. Certainly for the priest who is forced to officiate a gay wedding, letting live is getting in the way of his living. So what shall he do? It seems that the law has condemned him.
The reverse, though, is not true. If the General Conference of the Methodist Church decides it will not allow gay marriages, then Methodist pastors may not perform the ceremony, whatever their personal wishes are.
Whether civil officials (like, justices of the peace, county clerks, etc.) can refuse to marry a couple with a license, I don't know.
That is precisely the problem in Saudi Arabia.
Just one of many such cases -
http://newsexaminer.net/crime/christian-sentenced-to-prison-for-refusing-to-marry-gay-couple/
"But the church is also registered as a for-profit business and city officials said that means the owners must comply with state and federal regulations."
I haven't the vaguest idea why this church is registered as a for-profit business -- most irregular. However, if it is so registered, then as such it would have to deliver up a wedding service.
There is great reason to be concerned about civil liberties in Saudi Arabia -- whether two men can marry is the least of a saudi citizen's concern. Isn't just being gay illegal there?
You may want to look at:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/16/blog-posting/did-vermont-pastor-get-sentenced-prison-refusing-m/
Not only is homosexuality forbidden, but trying to disseminate Christianity in Saudi Arabia is punishable by death.
Here is an article on The Left's Problem with Islam. I think it makes a valid point that whilst some on the Right really are 'islamaphobic', many on the Left seem unwilling to acknowledge the genuine issues that exist in respect of the co-existence of Islam with democratic liberalism.
Many leftists are very secular, and have never had any kind of religious training or experience. (Contrary factoid: Joseph Stalin was educated by the Jesuits and they seem to have done him no good, whatsoever.) They don't have much of a POV to even begin sorting out good and bad religion.
Secular, anti-religious leftists have no experience with the process of accommodating very old strands of a religion that on the face of it seem utterly alien to us. The story of Abraham and Isaac is to modern ears an appalling story. Of course; it is appalling, but ancient and modern believers look beyond the preparation for a ritual killing and burning of one's own child; in it they found/find a key element of their faith in Abraham's obedience.
All religious people do this. Islamic and Christian lunatics do it in reverse: They fasten upon the appalling teaching and elevate (and sometimes exaggerate) it to literal code: It says x, y, and z, then that is exactly what you have to do -- exactly x, y, and z -- no wishy-washy interpretation. Burn the witch. Kill the Jews. Stone the adulterous woman, and so on ad nauseum.
I also think that it's mistaken to say that Islam is really a peaceful religion. It is and always was a martial creed, with scope for religious sanction of warfare where it is justified. It was founded by a general and grew by military conquest. That isn't to demonise Islam but I think there is precious little understanding of that aspect of their culture in the West, and again, it's often 'politically incorrect' to discuss it.
That article concludes:
But the article I referred to is critical of the fact that the Left will generally attribute the cause of terrorism to US foreign policy and are unwilling to face the fact that Islam has some responsibility for the problem. But clearly it is a nuanced, multi-faceted, and complex issue, with no easy answers.
And it's disingenuous to say that the Westboro Baptist Church, or Christians that bomb abortion clinics, or murder dozens of young Norwegians, have no connection to Christian tradition.
What traditions and ancient scriptures say is of very little importance. People that wish to be violent will always find ways to justify their violence. What is important is what the people who belong to religions that have those scriptures believe and do.
Do you remember the name of the person who murdered 77 young Norwegians?
Of course you do.
Can you name any of these perpetrators?
Murderer of 86 and injured 434 by mowing them down with a cargo lorry in Nice.
Murderer of 49, injured 53 in Florida, for being gay.
Either of the murderers of 14 plus 22 injured in San Bernardino.
Any of the perpetrators of the Bataclan massacre, in which people were disembowelled and castrated before being murdered. 89 deaths.
Of course you can't, despite these atrocities being more recent than the one in Norway. I wonder why you think that is?
And just to correct you, Anders Breivik declared that he has never identified as a Christian. He calls his religion Odinism, but then he does have a personality disorder.
If you ever feel inclined to draw an equivalence between the Westboro Baptist church and the problem of Islamic terrorism again, please consult this Wikipedia page first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
And spare a thought for the plight of the Yazidi sex-slaves.
To some extent this is true. You're explaining that people aren't slaves to scripture, but rather people define for themselves what's sacred by their innate knowledge of good and evil. You're on the verge of formulating a moral outlook that has its roots in Zoroastrianism, which is one of the tributaries of Islam.
However, there have been Muslims who justified slavery and rape by pointing to the life and words of the Prophet. That is beyond reasonable doubt. It's also a fact that Muslims are dependent on secular law to condemn these actions. That is a serious problem. Muslim scholars know it is. There just isn't any way to address that issue right now.
So Islam faces some serious challenges. We can't take those challenges off the table entirely and say they have nothing to do with events in the world. That would essentially be saying that Islam is a dead religion. It's not.
But an allied point is this: people who are prone to judging large numbers of people they've never met won't be persuaded not to do that by the presentation of any facts. A person acts according to an innate moral compass, not by presented information. True? Sometimes. Sometimes not.
So true, and so clearly exemplified by the post immediately above yours.
How about: "I think we should think hard about the best way to respond to attacks like these. Should we respond to them with a violent spirit? Or should we take a different path?"
What's your answer Andrew? What words or actions would represent our best selves?
A cool conversation:
My answer is that we need to take a multi-faceted approach, just like we do in combating other forms of organized crime. That involves:
1. Support for victims
2. Intelligence gathering
3. Enforcement against people involved in the criminal activity
4. Working to minimise the causes of the criminal activity. In the case of Islamic terrorism the most well-known of causes are war and poverty in regions from which the criminals mostly come, plus US foreign policy.
Many of these things are already being done. They are all necessary. I think there is too much emphasis on 2 and 3 and not enough on 1 and 4, but at least they are all being done to some extent.
We will never completely extinguish terrorism, just as we will never completely extinguish other forms of organized crime, but I believe a calm, thoughtful, determined application of the above approach can produce good results.
So would you argue that 'US foreign policy' is more or less responsible for terrorism than, for example, Saudi Arabia's financial support for Wahabi ideologies across the Islamic world?
Pretty unemotional answer there, Andrew. :)
No one cares about your justifications, they only see your actions. Violence always perpetuates more violence. I won't deny it's possible necessity, but I will also not deny that in that moment, my acts are no different than any other analogous acts regardless of how different I think they are. Know that you always are the proponent of violence when you are violent, without exception.
Indeed, and deliberately so. It's emotional responses to crime that generate harmful actions that make us all worse off. That's why doctors, jurists, detectives and so many other crucial professions take themselves off a case if they are emotionally involved in it - such as when the patient, or the victim of a crime, is known to the doctor/detective. I wish politicians would do the same.
Of course people care about justifications. That's why wrongful arrest is such an emotional issue. I doubt the movie 'In the Name of the Father' would have been made if the Guildford Four had actually been responsible for the bombings for which the British government committed the violence of imprisoning them. Violence does not always perpetuate violence. A well-aimed sniper shot to a lone hostage-taker can save many lives. But mostly I agree with you. The West responded with far too much violence to the 2001 terrorist attacks, and has been reaping the fruits of that since.
My apologies, I meant no one that isn't under their employ.
Emotional responses are the problem? Um.. no. It takes a hardening of the heart to be able to chop somebody's head off. The vileness actually starts with a lack of natural emotion.
I'm stealing this to start a new thread, hopefully out of the eye and interest of the extremists.
I think you might completely misunderstand the mindset of those who behead, immolate, rape, disembowel, and castrate in the name of their religion. These are people who genuinely believe they are doing good. They are filled with joy at finally being able to fulfill the will of their god. It is probably addictive.
There are many stories, related by escaped Yazidi sex-slaves, of ISIS members praying before and after their heinous act. And of course, the Quran and Hadith do in fact justify these behaviours.
Quoting tom
They are used to justify them, yes.