Banning words won’t make the world more just

Post by LewisVerstappen » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 7:44 PM UTC

sbuk wrote: post #523

roenxi wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The language terror they were subjected to has made them so unsecure that they actually dont want to hear that blind people have no issue with being called blind. It is unusual for the opinions of the minorities involved to be relevant.The language policing appears to be a power play within the majority. What you are observing is consistent with that - they aren't worried about offending the blind, they're worried…

It not even a majority that dictates. It’s ostensibly a vocal minority of professional offence-takers who wield power, generally on social media. My partner has MS, and I made an off-the-cuff joke about it, and got pilloried by people that neither of us know. Not one of them took the time to consider that this is how we deal with it; they were too busy being offended on her behalf.

Post by tptacek » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 8:35 PM UTC

nhchris wrote: post #948

tptacek wrote: post #944

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few companies have DEI programs. DEI isn't a trend because it's a defense against specious discrimination suits. It's a trend because it's fashionable. The argument in your last paragraph is thus easily falsified. A message board strategic tip: if you're going to try to make an argument about how antiracism is overreaching in our society --- which should be a layup! --- try to do it without citing an overt racis…

> Very few companies have DEI programs. Please don't lie to me: "I have surveyed the programming of every Fortune 100 company and have confirmed that all of them have now adopted so-called DEI programs." - https://www.city-journal.org/the-diversity-equity-and-inclus... Though I'm sure if you look at all companies, including every corner store, hair salon, and taco shop, the proportion of DEI initiatives and HR depart…

Post by lionsdan » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 8:55 PM UTC

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #567

jamilton wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it become purely biological and not social in this case? Applying this definition strictly means woman who aren't able to bear children are not women.

No. What GP is saying is merely that being capable of childbearing obviously requires female biological sex. But the implication doesn't have to go in the opposite direction for it to be true. Another example: the only vertebrates that can fly are birds(ignoring squirrels and weird fish). That's not equivalent to saying that the ostrich is not a bird. Flying vertebrate => bird Bird =/> flying vertebrate

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 11:35 PM UTC

docmars wrote: post #949

juve1996 wrote: post #937

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you share some examples of this violence?

Unfortunately I don't spend my days bookmarking videos on Twitter to share with people who are interested just enough to criticize these claims with strawmen / other fallacies, but too disinterested to seek the evidence readily available to them from news sources they've written off entirely. I can't help you there. Now, I don't mean to assume you fall within the category I described above, but that's usually the cas…

Post by andrekandre » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 11:57 PM UTC

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #543

wonderwonder wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it as unintentional discrimination. It's treating the people they are relabeling as children that need the kind progressives to step in and save them. It's so condescending. Minorities don't need white Knights to save them, neither do the disabled. If an individual wants me to not refer to them as x because they find it offensive, no problem. But a group of academics should not be able to sit around and decide…

Identity politics is not unintentional. Those indoctrinated into it may be unaware but the intention is to divide us.