A fine comic regarding political correctness

Wiley Miller hits the nail on the head:

Someone asking for Olaf.
And in compliance with the Anti-Profiling Clause of the Hypersensitive Appeasement Act, I have to ask…
Which one of you is Olaf?

(To get the entire joke, click here)

Advertisements

Modern vs. Postmodern – when worlds collide

Just found an academic account of what is going wrong in post-modern academia.

Modern discourse

Following are ten key characteristics of modern discourse, what many professors and students even now consider the normal or standard way to think, study and argue in the academy:

  • “personal detachment from the issues under discussion,” the separation of participants’ personal identities from subjects of inquiry and topics of debate;
  • values on “confidence, originality, agonism, independence of thought, creativity, assertiveness, the mastery of one’s feelings, a thick skin and high tolerance for your own and others’ discomfort”;
  • suited to a heterotopic space like a university class, scholarly journal, or session of a learned society conference, a place apart much like a playing field for sports events, where competitors engage in ritual combat before returning with a handshake to the realm of friendly, personal interaction;
  • illustrated by debate in the British House of Commons;
  • epitomized by the debates a century ago between socialist G. B. Shaw and distributist G. K. Chesterton;
  • playfulness is legitimate: one can play devil’s advocate, speak tongue in cheek, overstate and use hyperbole, the object being not to capture the truth in a single, balanced monologue, but to expose the strengths and weaknesses of various positions;
  • “scathing satire and sharp criticism” are also legitimate;
  • the best ideas are thought to emerge from mutual, merciless probing and attacking of arguments, with resultant exposure of blindspots in vision, cracks in theories, inconsistencies in logic;
  • participants are forced again and again to return to the drawing board and produce better arguments;
  • the truth is understood not to be located in any single voice, but to emerge from the conversation as a whole.

Postmodern discourse

Over the past half century, a competing mode of discourse, the one I call postmodern, has become steadily more entrenched in academe. Following are ten of its hallmarks, as Roberts and Sailer describe on their blogs:

  • “persons and positions are ordinarily closely related,” with little insistence on keeping personal identity separate from the questions or issues under discussion;
  • “sensitivity, inclusivity, and inoffensiveness are key values”;
  • priority on “cooperation, collaboration, quietness, sedentariness, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, conformity, a communal focus”;
  • “seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge,” in the eyes of proponents of modern discourse;
  • tends to perceive the satire and criticism of modern discourse as “vicious and personal attack, driven by a hateful animus”;
  • is oriented to “the standard measures of grades, tests, and a closely defined curriculum”;
  • lacking “means by which to negotiate or accommodate such intractable differences within its mode of conversation,” it will “typically resort to the most fiercely antagonistic, demonizing, and personal attacks upon the opposition”;
  • “will typically try, not to answer opponents with better arguments, but to silence them completely as ‘hateful’, ‘intolerant’, ‘bigoted’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘homophobic’, etc.”;
  • has a more feminine flavor, as opposed to the more masculine flavor of modern discourse;
  • results in “stale monologues” and contexts that “seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers.”

Ever had a discussion with an average feminist? Then you’ll know exactly what they are talking about.

Read the whole thing here, it’s quite interesting.

On body language and verbal language

Dr. Warren Farrell is accused of rape apology not least because he thinks that the interplay between verbal language and body language is complex and that, if any rule is possible at all, body language tends to be more important.

Prominent feminists repudiate that notion altogether (“No means No, no exceptions”), others are more or less confused.

Since I think that a slightly oversimplifying picture can help illustrate (ha) a point, I cobbled together this:

body-language

Ask yourself: would you say the girl on the left is really saying yes or no? She is in fact saying both. Which one should the boy believe and act on?

If your answer is “No”, you are not from this world.

If your answer is “Yes”, you just agreed that the topic is far more complicated than some want us to believe.

Especially since the behaviour in the flirt phase (or most any phase for that matter) is located in the white “don’t express anything” area in the middle. Every approving or disproving “statement” will likely be very subtle and prone to be misunderstood.

creepy*

——————
Edit: permutationofninjas further elaborates:

What it’s actually about is avoiding people being taught to listen to body language rather than speech in the first place. What this requires is people to generally synchronize their actions with their body language, most of the time.

When we stop people from being taught to privilege body language over speech through years of dealing with people who don’t say what they mean, the occasional bit of confusion between the two won’t matter because people will be used to listening to what people say in the first place. The issue isn’t necessarily “body language and speech being out of sync”, but rather “people getting used to other people purposely saying things different to what they mean.”

This is flying in the face of the female’s concept of “plausible deniability” that is – as far as I can make out – so deeply rooted, that for the next umpteen generations it does not matter if it is actually rooted in biology or sociology.

In other words: There are soooo many reasons underlying the “I mean yes, or probably I am as yet only open to be convinced, but will never ever ever say so.” attitude that at least 90% of women alive today will never be taught to bring verbal and subliminal messages in line.

In yet other words: I have the highest respect for the humans** at permutationofninjas, but having an ideology (in their case probably along the line “Truth and Honesty are more important than most anything”) blinds you.

It happens to the best of us.

——————
*) xkcd art included under fair-use-rule.

**) Their admins don’t tire emphasizing that they are as mixed a bunch of het-gay-cis-noncis people that I know of no other fitting collective term

Arguments and examples against a police state

Whenever anyone argues for more controls and more laws and that state/police should take on responsibilities that are originally rested in the hands of the individual, they should be reminded of cases like this.

How the fruits of feminism ruin lives…

How feminism killed my favourite comic strip

[[ Note: I consider this post to fall under the fair use policy. If you own the rights and disagree, please let me know and I will take the images down. ]]

I discovered the strip “Sinfest” a few years ago and was an instantly enthusiastic reader; the best thing I read since Calvin and Hobbes. Ishida really can draw and all characters, as far as I am concerned, were lovingly portrayed, even the ones that every time evoked the reaction “I can’t believe you just did that…”
Sinfest, although handling adolescent to adult topics, had that attitude that makes Pooh the best children’s book of all time.*

Slick
Slick used to be the main character of the strip. In concept vaguely similar to Charlie Brown in that he never gets what he most desires. He likes to see himself as slick and suave, while women see him as small and vulgar.



Yes, Ishida loves to draw cute and sexy girls. Possibly what sealed his later fate 😦

’Nique
Nique started out as love- and lust-interest of Slick but developed her own character. Young, pretty, into arts and save-the-world-attitudes; to a certain extent a stereotypical girl. It remains unclear why exactly she is and stays single.




(more…)

Howard Schwartz on Political Correctness and Entitlement

I am currently reading an excellent book: “Society against itself” by Howard Schwartz. I am not sure yet that I agree with his entire theory but the book is of the best kind of book: it motivates me to think long and hard about what it has to say. Whatever else, I am certain that I will be smarter or wiser after reading and thinking about it. And that certainty is alarmingly rare.

To give you an idea:

For a long time now I am feeling increasingly  uneasy about every new example of political correctness I come across. Something about PC feels completely wrong even if I so far could not put my finger on what exactly that is.

I know that I am not alone with that impression. “Political correctness gone mad” is a standing idiom in the UK.

Another thing I always wondered about is the fact that practically every author in the manosphere relates tales of “entitled” women. Apparently very many females in the US and the UK have an irrational sense of their own worth and thereby what they are entitled to.

Schwartz offers a theory that answers both questions: What is wrong with PC and what is wrong with girls* today.
(more…)

Communicating physically with children

Jezebel has this article today. While I am not righteous enough to read the entire thing, the topic as such is interesting.

I always found a push or a slap to be a highly efficient and effective way of communication. There is no better way to bring the message “You’ve just crossed a border” across.

I was slapped by my parents perhaps a dozen times, perhaps fewer. I can remember only one time when I could not see the justification. I did get the message “I just need you to behave right now”, though.

I am not talking about mutilating beating here. But slaps. Occasional ones. What is vile about them?

Sorry for my simpleton-like asking, the answer must be obvious, otherwise there would be no laws against slapping, would there? I just must have missed that part of the discussion where the evilness of physical communication was explained.

————————–

I wonder if this is related to the current trend to assume that a man hugging a child must be a pedophile.

Is all male physicality bad unless a female has given her written consent to endure experience it?

But then why is it bad when a woman slaps her child?

Probably because all violence is inherently male and when a female shows violent behaviour it is only the patriarchy acting through her. Or some such thing.

In the Age of Political Correctness

Today’s edition of F-Minus, available here

Remember: it is always the system’s fault, never the individual’s.