In Defense of Political Correctness

[Derived Absurdity]

https://medium.com/@adamjohnsonNYC/in-d ... 03f6e19e5c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Eva Yojimbo]

I've long said that, at its core, the whole PC movement is really about learning to not be an asshole to marginalized people. If it sometimes goes too far the net positives far outweigh the negatives. I've never really understood the backlash against it to begin with... but maybe that's just a sign I'm not an asshole to begin with. I'll take it as a good thing until someone convinces me differently.

About the only thing I find objectionable in that article is the bit about "eliminating English classes that only feature white male poets." While I think you can use such classes to teach how women and minorities didn't get equal opportunities in education and publishing, I don't think it's good to artificially elevate the few women and minority writers there were as if they were as equally talented as most in the canon. If the class was expanded to include America and international poets then you'd have more options: Dickinson, eg, would be mandatory reading in any American poetry class. If the classes including the 20th century then you'd also have more options, and most poetry textbooks I've read that do include modern poetry include women and minority poets. It's worth noting that English literature, in general, has less of a problem given the eminence of George Eliot and Jane Austen.

[phe_de]

Not a bad article.

[Islandmur]

I liked the article it made me think, because sometimes I do think we are too much PC and wonder what the future will be like will all the limitations on language, but I do also think PC is necessary because there are things that shouldn't be let pass.

The thing about the poets didn't phase me because there must be women poets, maybe less minorities, in every century if not necessarily americans or english.

[Anakin McFly]

I don't think those examples were particularly bad, and I agree that the anti-PC brigade is usually mad that they're not allowed to be assholes to minorities.

But my own objection is how, carried to it's logical end, political correctness makes communication close to impossible. Language, and English in particular, reflects its extremely flawed and bigoted history. Many words, idioms and phrases we think are innocent probably aren't, and no one save a few obsessive linguists honestly has the energy or time to research every word we say in case it has some offensive connotation, which too many do. Back in the day on LiveJournal I'd spend fifteen minutes carefully crafting a paragraph reply to be as non-offensive and well-meaning as possible only for someone to pick up on something objectionable. It was mentally exhausting to go over everything that closely only to almost inevitably fail, and I'd much rather have had a community that operated on a good faith basis rather than yelling at someone who used the phrase "blind to the problems of..." for being ableist and suggesting that blind people didn't care about others, or referring to "disabling the security system" as likewise ableist where 'disabled' = bad/ineffective/nonfunctional, or picking on someone calling someone or something "stupid" as suggesting that smart people were better than less intelligent people. But some things are just stupid, and there needs to be a way to express that.

I agree that all those things say something important about how all these biases (ableism in particular) have infiltrated the structure and vocabulary of our languages and thus our thought processes. But languages take time to change, and until then, we still need this language to communicate, flaws and all. I'd reached a point where I was unable to express a particular idea without evoking any problematic concepts (ableism is arguably built into life itself, where function = good and disability = bad), and that's the point I'm worried that 'PC culture' is headed towards.

A friend from that time once mentioned being part of a creative writing group where everyone avoided writing stories or poetry about people because they were afraid they might offend, so instead they just wrote poetry about buildings and the weather where nothing actually happened. I love that sort of poetry, but that still sounded terrible. And then there was this trans guy who shared his amazing coming out story and how his family came to accept him, which got comments like "yes, keep telling us how great it is to be a straight white man".

But that was 5-10 years ago when things were bad enough that a bunch of prominent activists made a point to speak up about it and say that people were going about this the wrong way, and I think it helped in that online social justice culture seems to have become a lot kinder and more forgiving than it used to be. (Except on tumblr, because it's filled with teenagers and teenagers terrify me.)

That over-policing doesn't make for a thriving or healthy community of any sort, and I only saw the difference when encountering RL social justice spaces where I was allowed to be imperfect, and slip up, without being attacked - sometimes without people even knowing there was anything wrong with what I said - and, in that forgiving space, being a lot more able to get things done without being afraid all the time. I'm still repeatedly surprised when people say things that could be construed as problematic and no one from the targetted group seems to notice, partly because they're doing it themselves; and I actually love that. It's so freeing, and I know none of them mean any offense, usually because they don't speak English that well. And where our language and beliefs should be corrected, we learn together and grow together, rather than being ganged up on and lectured. Everything becomes less stressful without the sense that you have to meet this impossible standard of linguistic perfection or else you're a terrible person perpetuating systems of oppression and no one will like you anymore.

[Cassius Clay]

I have some beef with Adam Johnson because of his part in the uncharitable, tribalist nonsense between hard, left-leaning Dems and socialists...but this is really well-written.

And Dave Rubin is a punk ass bitch.

[Derived Absurdity]

I have some beef with Adam Johnson because of his part in the uncharitable, tribalist nonsense between hard, left-leaning Dems and socialists...but this is really well-written.

What do you mean?

[Cassius Clay]

He's just a bitch. Lol I honestly don't remember exactly what he did at this point. It could be so many things, but I just got a bad first impression of him. Funny thing is I see his tweets a lot(even though I don't follow him), and pretty much agree with him all the time. He's also had some altercations with people who's opinions I highly value. I just don't fully trust certain prominent, white leftists. Connor Kilpatrick said some stupid, class-over-race shit the other day about identity politics causing the rise of the alt-right, and some prominent internet leftist people who I thought were smarter than that(like Emmett Rensin) were agreeing with him.

[Derived Absurdity]

So you don't trust him because you associate him with people like Connor Kilpatrick, on a thread about an article where he demonstrates that he doesn't subscribe to the stuff that you think makes people like Connor Kilpatrick bad. Okay.

Adam Johnson has always respected "identity politics" and defended "political correctness" and has been perfectly willing to call out and distance himself from brogressives who don't. That's one of the reasons he's one of my favorite people to follow on Twitter. Also I've never seem him get into an "altercation" with someone who didn't deserve it.

[Cassius Clay]

Actually I was comparing him to Emmett Rensin to demonstrate why I distrust a lot of prominent, white leftists in general. Connor Kilpatrick is clearly a moron...Emmett Rensin is not clearly a moron, and is well-respected within those circles, yet agreed with Connor Kilpatrick on that point.

Like I said, it seems I agree with Johnson on many things, but I just got a bad first impression of him and I can't remember exactly what it was. And, additionally, he has had weird altercations with people I trust(then deleted his tweets).

[Cassius Clay]

Also, I don't have some irrationally paranoid mistrust of most white leftists or anything like that. I think I have pretty good judgement and instincts when it comes to deciphering who to be cautious of and who to trust. It's very possible that my first impression of Johnson was wrong, but I'm still wary for now. Peter Coffin is someone I trust a lot, as an anti-capitalist who doesn't minimize or trivialize "identity politics'...and doesn't come across as a smug, "leftier-than-thou" bastard. In fact, he was one of the people that made me reconsider the "alt-left" rhetoric as a term that would cause more harm than good, because of how people abuse it(even if there are problematic leftists that need to be purged).

The other thing about these class-over-race leftists is that they don't usually come out and shout "class over race!" They will swear that they aren't saying that, but it's in the implications of the things they say/do. Kilpatrick didn't say "class over race" and he will deny it if you accused him, but he said identity politics from the left/liberals caused the alt-right. Then Emmett Rensin separated himself by another degree by not outright agreeing with him, but saying he witnessed it happening first-hand. These people are sneaky fucks. Much like how right-wingers don't come right out and say what they mean because they know it will be received badly/give the game away. Or how no one says white immigrants are more "American" than non-white immigrants, but will only call it "madness" when white immigrants are being deported. And sometimes they don't even realize the implications of their own statements and actions because they aren't completely conscious of it(have unexamined whiteness). Which adds a complication when it comes to confronting it, because you can't even distinguish between who the malevolent actors are and who is just being thoughtless...because the result is the same.

[Derived Absurdity]

Well, like I said, the whole reason I like the guy is that he's not a brogressive douchebag like those guys. He's never made excuses for the alt-right or Trump fans or anyone else of that nature afaik, and he's always been perfectly willing to make fun of ostensible allies that do. He's also been pretty woke concerning structural racism and white privilege, or at least as woke as white people can get. He's attacked Slavoj Zizek as a fascist/reactionary for his views on migrants when almost no one else would. I don't know, he's always seemed pretty trustworthy to me. I haven't heard anything problematic from him so far, and I follow him somewhat closely. He's pretty incisive, sharp, and above all humane... one of the few white Internet leftists that are actually good IMO.