Jerry Seinfeld: Political Correctness Will Destroy Comedy
658 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thisispain;47910163]in the United States however a lot of Jews have integrated as part of the dominant class (though not all by far, especially if they maintain the more outwardly Jewish cultural beliefs such as the Orthodox and Hasidim) which I suppose makes them "white".
[/QUOTE]
I don't understand this. Is whiteness a social class thing now? Could a black person who becomes a 1%er be integrated into the dominate class and be "white?" Likewise, would a white person who is not part of the dominant class be considered a non-white?
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47910149]From Maddox' website:
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/965202/ShareX/2015/06/2015-06-08_17-38-15.png[/img]
I follow this rule. I'm not going to curtail what I say for useless pedantics. If you really have to question what I'm referring to and want to but in and say, "Well, not [I]all[/I] of X is Y", then I sincerely wish to stop talking with you and want you to go away. (not you specifically, I think you're great in a lot of threads)
The point is, if I say "tumblr activist" or[B] "SJW"[/B], people automatically get an idea of the person I'm talking about. Stereotypes exist for a reason, and while they can be venemous, they can also carry out the basic idea I'm trying to convey...[/QUOTE]
Meanwhile these guys make sweeping statements about straight white men, mra's and gg supporters without seeing the hypocrisy.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47910149]Stereotypes exist for a reason, and while they can be venemous, they can also carry out the basic idea I'm trying to convey.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but if you judge someone based off of a stereotype, you're more of an idiot than any Tumblr poster I've ever seen
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47910149]From Maddox' website:
[/QUOTE]
That is obviously what I was talking about. You can't dismiss it with just "who cares," it's a very huge argumentation problem. People deal with it in logic classes all the time. He's basically admitting he's playing to your expectations. That's not good if you want to be clear and concise, things that the people you're talking to tend to value.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47910149]I follow this rule. I'm not going to curtail what I say for useless pedantics. If you really have to question what I'm referring to and want to but in and say, "Well, not [I]all[/I] of X is Y", then I sincerely wish to stop talking with you and want you to go away. (not you specifically, I think you're great in a lot of threads)[/QUOTE]
You can follow it, but it's still not logically sound. It's not pedantic to point out that the argument serves as rhetoric rather than an operative statement. It's important in fact to point it out because a lot of our arguments get convoluted because we can't separate rhetorical concepts with what we call "facts."
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47910149]The point is, if I say "tumblr activist" or "SJW", people automatically get an idea of the person I'm talking about. Stereotypes exist for a reason, and while they can be venemous, they can also carry out the basic idea I'm trying to convey. The people that get pissy about this are getting pissy to get pissy, and are probably complaining because they don't want to be grouped with others despite the similarities. And in that case, I really don't care.[/QUOTE]
You assume that they know, but I don't. I don't know what a "Tumblr activist" or an "SJW" is. The meaning changes constantly because, and this is what I'm trying to get through here, it's a rhetorical concept which changes according to who makes the argument. As long as you acknowledge that, it's cool, but it also means you're never really doing much except regurgitate rhetoric for the purposes of ascribing yourself to a social group. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argot]I'd actually call it a form of Argot[/url]
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47910188]I don't understand this. Is whiteness a social class thing now? Could a black person who becomes a 1%er be integrated into the dominate class and be "white?" Likewise, would a white person who is not part of the dominant class be considered a non-white?[/QUOTE]
the irish were considered the white niggers so i guess so
[editline]9th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47910194]Meanwhile these guys make sweeping statements about straight white men, mra's and gg supporters without seeing the hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]
you just made a sweeping statement about "these guys"
DID YOU SEE THE HYPOCRISY!?
[QUOTE=thisispain;47910204]That is obviously what I was talking about. You can't dismiss it with just "who cares," it's a very huge argumentation problem. People deal with it in logic classes all the time. He's basically admitting he's playing to your expectations. That's not good if you want to be clear and concise, things that the people you're talking to tend to value.
You can follow it, but it's still not logically sound. It's not pedantic to point out that the argument serves as rhetoric rather than an operative statement. It's important in fact to point it out because a lot of our arguments get convoluted because we can't separate rhetorical concepts with what we call "facts."
You assume that they know, but I don't. I don't know what a "Tumblr activist" or an "SJW" is. The meaning changes constantly because, and this is what I'm trying to get through here, it's a rhetorical concept which changes according to who makes the argument. As long as you acknowledge that, it's cool, but it also means you're never really doing much except regurgitate rhetoric for the purposes of ascribing yourself to a social group. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argot]I'd actually call it a form of Argot[/url][/QUOTE]
And the solution is obviously going to be to copy down a long list of people in a Google Document and embed that as a link every time I want to make an argument about political correctness.
Whenever I refer to these people, I refer to very basic rules that they follow. In this argument, I'm making a reference to being overly political correct and sensitive. If I'm going to draw specifics, I'll drop the stereotype and actually provide an example. But otherwise, it's not important and doesn't affect my argument.
[QUOTE=Scum;47910209]the irish were considered the white niggers so i guess so[/QUOTE]
Yeah. The definition of "white" has almost always had a political element to it. It historically has defined the racial lines of "haves" and "have-nots". The Irish are the most obvious example: the definition of Irish as "not white" was an important part of their subjugation by England et al.
Now that antisemitism has mostly died out in the main stream, plenty of people consider Jews de-facto white, given that the ethnic group generally has fairish skin. If you said that jews were white in the 1900s, you'd be laughed at. So, uh, progress I guess?
[QUOTE=Scum;47910209]
you just made a sweeping statement about "these guys"
DID YOU SEE THE HYPOCRISY!?[/QUOTE]
What? I make generalizations about groups. Tea partiers, Fox news viewers, Dailymail commentors, sjw feminists, legbeards, neckbeards etc.
People generally know what type of person you're referring to when you say stuff like that.
The problem, which I can admit to, is that my use of the stereotype can infuse with another person's use of the stereotype, providing conflict. In that case, I'll admit that being more specific can help, but I don't know a rational way of doing so.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47910194]Meanwhile these guys make sweeping statements about straight white men, mra's and gg supporters without seeing the hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]
yeah this massive group of people keeps making sweeping generalizations about massive groups of people. such hypocrites.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47910188]I don't understand this. Is whiteness a social class thing now? Could a black person who becomes a 1%er be integrated into the dominate class and be "white?" Likewise, would a white person who is not part of the dominant class be considered a non-white?[/QUOTE]
"Whiteness" has been a social class thing ever since we've started structuralism as a thing.
My problem with the internet's "pop-academia" is that we use all of these academic terms without really understanding them, so now everyone (including me, of course) regurgitate them without concise semantic meaning.
A black person cannot necessarily become integrated into the dominant white class, but we do have terms for black people who play to the "white" social-structure. Those are people my friend would call "the New blacks", or an older term would be "Uncle Tom." Basically the idea is that they're rejecting "blackness" as a socio-cultural-linguistic thing in order to become part of the dominant white class, though you could say they'll never truly be a part of that class because of their skin even through they adopt SWE (Standard White English) over AAVE (African-American Vernacular English).
A white person being not part of a dominant class depends, if you mean just color of skin then yes, there are lots of "ethnic minorities" who do have white skin but face systematic discrimination for a variety of reasons. If you mean specifically "white" as part of the dominant class then I suppose it depends on the community, some people however believe all white people in at least America are privileged due to socio-economic things; I tend to reject that because it's just not very useful.
[QUOTE=Kinglah Crab;47908614]old white man upset he's not allowed to say racist shit anymore. more at 12[/QUOTE]
Get fucking banned already, jesus. You're like Tumblr personified every single time you post.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47909119]But you are not affected by institutional racism. You have been annoyed by people treating you differently because you're white. That's not racism.
i really don't know what you people are not getting about this, it's like you're trying to be contrarian[/QUOTE]
I got chased out of a shop in London for being a "dumb fookin' jock."
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47910246]What? I make generalizations about groups.[/quote]
you literally just said it's ok to generalize
[quote]Tea partiers, Fox news viewers, Dailymail commentors, sjw feminists, legbeards, neckbeards etc.[/QUOTE]
but it's hypocrisy to generalize
[QUOTE]straight white men, mra's and gg supporters[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=thisispain;47910257]"Whiteness" has been a social class thing ever since we've started structuralism as a thing.
My problem with the internet's "pop-academia" is that we use all of these academic terms without really understanding them, so now everyone (including me, of course) regurgitate them without concise semantic meaning.
A black person cannot necessarily become integrated into the dominant white class, but we do have terms for black people who play to the "white" social-structure. Those are people my friend would call "the New blacks", or an older term would be "Uncle Tom." Basically the idea is that they're rejecting "blackness" as a socio-cultural-linguistic thing in order to become part of the dominant white class, though you could say they'll never truly be a part of that class because of their skin even through they adopt SWE (Standard White English) over AAVE (African-American Vernacular English).
A white person being not part of a dominant class depends, if you mean just color of skin then yes, there are lots of "ethnic minorities" who do have white skin but face systematic discrimination for a variety of reasons. If you mean specifically "white" as part of the dominant class then I suppose it depends on the community, some people however believe all white people in at least America are privileged due to socio-economic things; I tend to reject that because it's just not very useful.[/QUOTE]
This seems like an extremely American perspective. How do these concepts apply to cultures outside of the West?
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47910238]And the solution is obviously going to be to copy down a long list of people in a Google Document and embed that as a link every time I want to make an argument about political correctness.
Whenever I refer to these people, I refer to very basic rules that they follow. In this argument, I'm making a reference to being overly political correct and sensitive. If I'm going to draw specifics, I'll drop the stereotype and actually provide an example. But otherwise, it's not important and doesn't affect my argument.[/QUOTE]
Well yes it does affect your argument in the sense that the words "Tumblr activists believes 'x'" isn't a falsifiable statement at all. Who knows if it's true or false? You can say anything, and it'll be just as "true."
There is no solution, you're regurgitating rhetoric because that's what humans do a lot of the time when they communicate with each-other. Accepting it is a very good thing when you want other people to read and get something out of your statements, otherwise it'll be incomprehensible to people who aren't "with" your argot.
This is the most effort in an argument about semantics I've ever seen
I loved Patton Oswalt's twitter takes on this. In a surprising turn, people got so fucking furious over his tweets that he pretty much takes monthly internet breaks now.
[url=http://www.funnyordie.com/articles/40be5ac64e/patton-oswalt-trolls-twitter-wins-everything]Part 1[/url]
[url=http://www.funnyordie.com/lists/3a81fffa8e/patton-oswalt-angers-twitter-idiots-with-fake-apologies]Part 2[/url]
Apologies if the links are shit
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47910274]you literally just said it's ok to generalize
but it's hypocrisy to generalize[/QUOTE]
he's saying people complaining about generalizations while themselves using generalizations are hypocrites, ranger said he isn't bothered by generalizations so he isn't being a hypocrite by generalizing
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47910274]
but it's hypocrisy to generalize[/QUOTE]
Sjw's think its the worst thing to use generalized terms but proudly do it themselves. I don't think its the worst thing.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47910278]This seems like an extremely American perspective. How do these concepts apply to cultures outside of the West?[/QUOTE]
Depends on which culture. Of course it'll seem American because I placed it in an American perspective, and it certainly is fair to point out that it's a very westernized conception of social-structures; that's why Post-structuralism is a big thing in Academia now.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47910284]Well yes it does affect your argument in the sense that the words "Tumblr activists believes 'x'" isn't a falsifiable statement at all. Who knows if it's true or false? You can say anything, and it'll be just as "true."
There is no solution, you're regurgitating rhetoric because that's what humans do a lot of the time when they communicate with each-other. Accepting it is a very good thing when you want other people to read and get something out of your statements, otherwise it'll be incomprehensible to people who aren't "with" your argot.[/QUOTE]
There's argot, and then there's jargon. Sometimes it's important to implement labels such as "SJW" or "MRA," even though we may personally hate them, in order to communicate expediently. People aren't gonna sit down and say "Person who does this and that or the other thing under this context," whenever they wish to discuss a specific group of people or a concept. Jargon such "SJW" or "MRA" or whatever can be a useful tool provided that the people conversing can agree upon a definition and understand that it's alluding to concepts that are more complicated than merely a singular label. For example, we use the terms Republican and Democratic while understanding that individual members of each group can have wildly opposing opinions on many topics. We understand that it's not one homogenous group, but we use them anyway because it's an expedient way to refer to complex ideas.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47910257]"A black person cannot necessarily become integrated into the dominant white class, but we do have terms for black people who play to the "white" social-structure. Those are people my friend would call "the New blacks", or an older term would be "Uncle Tom." Basically the idea is that they're rejecting "blackness" as a socio-cultural-linguistic thing in order to become part of the dominant white class, though you could say they'll never truly be a part of that class because of their skin even through they adopt SWE (Standard White English) over AAVE (African-American Vernacular English).[/QUOTE]
What exactly is "Standard White English"?
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;47910294]This is the most effort in an argument about semantics I've ever seen[/QUOTE]
Take a guess at what I study.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47910335]Take a guess at what I study.[/QUOTE]
Video games?
[QUOTE=Explosions;47910330]What exactly is "Standard White English"?[/QUOTE]
A loose amalgamation of all things European without actually having context behind them nor their customs.
[editline]8th June 2015[/editline]
And further, washes away the differences because there are major differences depending on where you grow up and your parents and grandparents are.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47910330]What exactly is "Standard White English"?[/QUOTE]
What David Foster Wallace called the academic style of English that they make you learn in school. It's a variant of a Midwestern-style of English that is [i]now[/i] associated with being literate and official. I've heard my professor call it "job search-speak," which I guess is her way of staying in tune with the black youth even though she's a professor.
David Foster Wallace argued that teaching SWE is an appeal to dominant power-structures, and that teaching it has within it its own implications regarding how we place the way we speak into hierarchies. Linguists tend to agree that black people who speak AAVE and SWE do much better in socio-economic terms than people who are mono-dialectal in just AAVE.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47910194]Meanwhile these guys make sweeping statements about straight white men, mra's and gg supporters without seeing the hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]
lmao
[editline]8th June 2015[/editline]
i'm sure mens rights activists and fucking gamergate supporters of all people can get over it
[QUOTE=Rocket;47909119]But you are not affected by institutional racism. You have been annoyed by people treating you differently because you're white. That's not racism.
i really don't know what you people are not getting about this, it's like you're trying to be contrarian[/QUOTE]
But it is racism. You're using the specialized Feminist academic use of racism that's used to describe wider trends in society as a whole, and trying to apply it to a context that isn't appropriate. Because in actuality it is the generalized every day use of the word Racism that applies here.
So just like it's fallacious when creationists try to criticize evolution as being "Just a Theory" because they're using a generalized definition of "Theory" when really the specialized scientific use of "Theory" is what applies. So too are you being fallacious when you use the specialized definition of a word when it's the general definition that applies.
You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47910311]Sjw's think its the worst thing to use generalized terms but proudly do it themselves. I don't think its the worst thing.[/QUOTE]
except the term "sjw" is a generalized term in itself. it's completely subjective to whoever's using it. you're calling people hypocrites for using generalizations while making a massive one yourself
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.