Jerry Seinfeld: Political Correctness Will Destroy Comedy
658 replies, posted
Here's the semantics problem with claiming racism, sexism, discrimination, and prejudice can only apply to systemic racism, sexism, or prejudice: We have now lost any way to describe prejudice by an individual against a majority or a group that isn't systematically oppressed. This is why these people (I won't call them SJWs for the sake of this debate) insist on using the "institutional prejudice" as the only definition; it absolves them of the fact that judging people negatively based on their sex and skin color is bad, even if people of that sex or skin color are in power in society as a whole. Because if that was racism or sexism, it'd obviously be bad, right? So we'd better redefine racism and sexism so that we don't have to feel bad about hating whites or hating men.
I don't know if you're already aware of the insidiousness of this, but people's insistence on redefining the definition of racism and sexism isn't as altruistic as you think it is.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;47919152]obviously in places where white people aren't the majority there can be systemic racism against white people.[/QUOTE]
What's actually very strange is that in a lot of cultural studies whiteness with skin tends to correlate with higher prestige in society. A lot of the cultures we look at where lighter-skinned people are systematically discriminated against occur as a result of colonialism, this would be the example of Haiti where literally every single white person was murdered after a slave revolt.
In today's globalized society, light-ness of skin has become completely associated with prestige and wealth. We have little insight into past cultures though, so who knows if it's always been this way.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47919150]Linguistics, specifically. Semantics is part of linguistics. My professor said I was the most pedantic bastard-child she'd ever seen so she wrote me a letter of recommendation.[/QUOTE]
pedantic is a great attribute for an academic linguist, in the context of studying and analyzing linguistics
It's an absolutely useless and migraine inducing attribute in any other conceivable situation. It's your responsibility to figure out what people are trying to say, that's the part where you put effort into the conversation. If you really can't figure out for the life of you what people are intending to say just because they aren't being mechanically precise, that's your problem, not theirs.
like, get an interpreter if it's that difficult for you
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47919184]pedantic is a great attribute for an academic linguist, in the context of studying and analyzing linguistics
It's an absolutely useless and migraine inducing attribute in any other conceivable situation. It's your responsibility to figure out what people are trying to say, that's the part where you put effort into the conversation. If you really can't figure out for the life of you what people are intending to say just because they aren't being mechanically precise, that's your problem, not theirs.
like, get an interpreter if it's that difficult for you[/QUOTE]
i think it's also important for people to look at the dumb shit they say more closely
*fart noises*
"its your fault if you cant hear the alphabet i'm sounding out with my shithole"
[QUOTE=Scum;47919144]the word extremist is stupid. same as radical.
they're words that are only useful when describing gnarly skateboard tricks.
a lot of the time, 'racist' pocs are so due to their experiences and cultural history of being shat on by white people and white driven institutions. same with 'sexist' women who are anti-men.
like is the hatred of the master towards the slave the same as the hatred of the slave towards the master??
both, in a black and white frame of reference are bad, but i think it's pretty stupid and disregarding of the real problems to say "ah but blacks can be racist too" like ok? the abused can abuse.[/QUOTE]
I know you aren't trying to say that it's OK for oppressed people to be racist, but what you just said can also apply to someone who, for instance, hates black people because their mother was killed by a black person.
Now I'm not going to claim that you're a hypocrite or anything because I know you aren't justifying racism by minorities, but at the same time please try to understand that when I say that it's possible for a person of a minority to be racist against whites (in opposition to the claim that it is impossible) and that said racism would be a bad thing, I am not saying that oppression of minorities doesn't exist, and I am not disregarding the problems they have.
The way you phrased it in your post made it seem like I was bringing up the fact that minorities can be racist in order to excuse racism against minorities, when this is not the case and I'm pretty sure you know that.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47919159]Here's the semantics problem with claiming racism, sexism, discrimination, and prejudice can only apply to systemic racism, sexism, or prejudice: We have now lost any way to describe prejudice by an individual against a majority or a group that isn't systematically oppressed. This is why these people (I won't call them SJWs for the sake of this debate) insist on using the "institutional prejudice" as the only definition; it absolves them of the fact that judging people negatively based on their sex and skin color is bad, even if people of that sex or skin color are in power in society as a whole. Because if that was racism or sexism, it'd obviously be bad, right? So we'd better redefine racism and sexism so that we don't have to feel bad about hating whites or hating men.
I don't know if you're already aware of the insidiousness of this, but people's insistence on redefining the definition of racism and sexism isn't as altruistic as you think it is.[/QUOTE]
Well here's the issue you run into there. We were talking about words and then you say that white people get murdered for being white. In the case of that, if the person killing a white person isn't white then they already get larger sentences; that's kind of an institutional fact and historically usually a black person killing a white person gets extra-judicially lynched.
I mean, even if we don't feel bad about hating whites, we still punish people who commit crimes against white people more than we punish people who commit crimes against other groups. This is why the hate-crime thing started as an ill-conceived attempt to rectify this.
Of course, I have to concede that women do get more lenient sentences than men for crimes... noting however that it isn't true when we look at women with darker skin.
You have to separate mock-sexism and racism as a cultural norm and social argot (it is well documented as a response to repression) from institutional and hierarchical sexism and racism. The latter is less visible than the former.
[editline]9th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47919184]pedantic is a great attribute for an academic linguist, in the context of studying and analyzing linguistics
It's an absolutely useless and migraine inducing attribute in any other conceivable situation. It's your responsibility to figure out what people are trying to say, that's the part where you put effort into the conversation. If you really can't figure out for the life of you what people are intending to say just because they aren't being mechanically precise, that's your problem, not theirs.
like, get an interpreter if it's that difficult for you[/QUOTE]
An interpreter is unavailable at this time so I'm making due with what I got.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47919159]Here's the semantics problem with claiming racism, sexism, discrimination, and prejudice can only apply to systemic racism, sexism, or prejudice: We have now lost any way to describe prejudice by an individual against a majority or a group that isn't systematically oppressed. This is why these people (I won't call them SJWs for the sake of this debate) insist on using the "institutional prejudice" as the only definition; it absolves them of the fact that judging people negatively based on their sex and skin color is bad, even if people of that sex or skin color are in power in society as a whole. Because if that was racism or sexism, it'd obviously be bad, right? So we'd better redefine racism and sexism so that we don't have to feel bad about hating whites or hating men.
I don't know if you're already aware of the insidiousness of this, but people's insistence on redefining the definition of racism and sexism isn't as altruistic as you think it is.[/QUOTE]
They capture the emotional impact of labeling someone or something as "racist" or "sexist" while making themselves invulnerable to this emotional impact. Why not use a new word to describe institutional prejudice? That would remove the negative emotional baggage carried by "racism," so just use that instead and redefine a word to shield yourself from those negative effects.
[QUOTE=Scum;47919197]i think it's also important for people to look at the dumb shit they say more closely[/QUOTE]
it isn't dumb just because it isn't absolutely and inarguably precise
if you just can't understand what people are trying to say even after they've reiterated and clarified several times, it's because you either have serious issues with contextual awareness or you're looking for a problem.
Sometimes talking with thisispain is like talking with someone who barely understands english. If that means he's smarter than everyone else then I'd rather be rock fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47919241]it isn't dumb just because it isn't absolutely and inarguably precise
if you just can't understand what people are trying to say even after they've reiterated and clarified several times, it's because you either have serious issues with contextual awareness or you're looking for a problem.
Sometimes talking with thisispain is like talking with someone who barely understands english. If that means he's smarter than everyone else then I'd rather be rock fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]
but when you're dealing with complicated sociological ideas and shit it really is important that you are precise because when talking about this stuff it's really easy to fall into generalization land and that's bad yo
[QUOTE=thisispain;47919150]Linguistics, specifically. Semantics is part of linguistics. My professor said I was the most pedantic bastard-child she'd ever seen so she wrote me a letter of recommendation.[/QUOTE]
Oh I don't doubt that at all.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47919241]
Sometimes talking with thisispain is like talking with someone who barely understands english. [/QUOTE]
That's ironic because people who are learning a language tend to devote far more time on thinking about their word choices than L1 speakers do.
[QUOTE=DuCT;47919267]Oh I don't doubt that at all.[/QUOTE]
It's a very lonely field.
[QUOTE=Scum;47919263]but when you're dealing with complicated sociological ideas and shit it really is important that you are precise because when talking about this stuff it's really easy to fall into generalization land and that's bad yo[/QUOTE]
Being an asshole to someone because of their skin color makes you a cunt. All the semantical discussion in the world won't change that.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47919210]Well here's the issue you run into there. We were talking about words and then you say that white people get murdered for being white. In the case of that, if the person killing a white person isn't white then they already get larger sentences; that's kind of an institutional fact and historically usually a black person killing a white person gets extra-judicially lynched.
I mean, even if we don't feel bad about hating whites, we still punish people who commit crimes against white people more than we punish people who commit crimes against other groups. This is why the hate-crime thing started as an ill-conceived attempt to rectify this.
Of course, I have to concede that women do get more lenient sentences than men for crimes... noting however that it isn't true when we look at women with darker skin.
You have to separate mock-sexism and racism as a cultural norm and social argot (it is well documented as a response to repression) from institutional and hierarchical sexism and racism. The latter is less visible than the former.
[editline]9th June 2015[/editline]
An interpreter is unavailable at this time so I'm making due with what I got.[/QUOTE]
A lot of the things that you just said are irrelevant to the point I made (although I don't disagree with any of it). I addressed exactly what the problem is with redefining the words racism, sexism, etc. and why, most likely, social left extremists are so insistent on doing so.
And for "Scum": saying that we should not use the words Extremist or Radical is basically saying that Extremists or Radicals don't exist (whatever your baseline for it is). And by not using those words, it makes it impossible to describe actions that are extremist or radical. The only alternative is to use the non-Extremist variant, like "social leftest", which leaves one wide open for being attacked for generalizing, and obviously you don't like generalizing, which is the reason that words like Extremist exist in the first place. When one makes a statement like "... when [___ extremists/SJW] do [action]" the only thing that needs to be taken from that statement is that the person using it believes that people who do that action are extremists/SJWs, and the only problem you should have at that point (in my opinion) of people using that term negatively is if you believe that said action is OK, and therefore are insulted that it is attributed to an extremist group (which in some cases is a fair thing to be offended by). Otherwise there should be no problem about "generalizing" because it's a subjective group in the first place, which no one unironically identifies with..
Obviously, for someone who wants to pretend that people like that don't exist, discouraging the use of SJW or Extremist makes it incredibly convenient, as it makes them impossible to discuss.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47919327]A lot of the things that you just said are irrelevant to the point I made (although I don't disagree with any of it). I addressed exactly what the problem is with redefining the words racism, sexism, etc. and why, most likely, social left extremists are so insistent on doing so.
And for "Scum": saying that we should not use the words Extremist or Radical is basically saying that Extremists or Radicals don't exist (whatever your baseline for it is). And by not using those words, it makes it impossible to describe actions that are extremist or radical. The only alternative is to use the non-Extremist variant, like "social leftest", which leaves one wide open for being attacked for generalizing, and obviously you don't like generalizing, which is the reason that words like Extremist exist in the first place. When one makes a statement like "... when [___ extremists/SJW] do [action]" the only thing that needs to be taken from that statement is that the person using it believes that people who do that action are extremists/SJWs, and the only problem you should have at that point (in my opinion) of people using that term negatively is if you believe that said action is OK, and therefore are insulted that it is attributed to an extremist group (which in some cases is a fair thing to be offended by). Otherwise there should be no problem about "generalizing" because it's a subjective group in the first place, which no one unironically identifies with..
Obviously, for someone who wants to pretend that people like that don't exist, discouraging the use of SJW or Extremist makes it incredibly convenient, as it makes them impossible to discuss.[/QUOTE]
people exist and when you put a label on them you will say that the label exists.
i'm not saying that there aren't groups of people who have more radical or more extreme views than you or i. i just don't call them that. i don't call Isis RADICAL islam. i call them isis. do u get? cos buzz words like extremism and radicalism can serve as fear mongering and as generalizing weakman fallacies and are dumb.
like it creates this great big OTHER and i think that's kind of silly and bad thinking but i don't really care if you do use them or not thou brah. i just think it's bad is all.
plus getting a bit paranoid in that last line.
[QUOTE=Scum;47919424]people exist and when you put a label on them you will say that the label exists.
i'm not saying that there aren't groups of people who have more radical or more extreme views than you or i. i just don't call them that. i don't call Isis RADICAL islam. i call them isis. do u get? cos buzz words like extremism and radicalism can serve as fear mongering and as generalizing weakman fallacies and are dumb.
like it creates this great big OTHER and i think that's kind of silly and bad thinking but i don't really care if you do use them or not thou brah. i just think it's bad is all.
plus getting a bit paranoid in that last line.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Someone tells you what they mean, and then you turn around and say "No, you mean this".
Obviously not all labels have to refer to a literal group of people, since he used a label and stated quite clearly that he wasn't referring to a literal group of people. If you want to continue insisting that that's what he meant, go ahead, but you aren't going to fucking get anywhere because that clearly [I]isn't[/I] what he meant.
I'm all for rooting out tribalism and fear of the other and what have you but at the end of the day those are illogical processes that can't be circumvented through the logical application of linguistics. People are still going to "fear the other" whether they refer to the people they think are a bunch of pricks as a bunch of pricks or not.
[QUOTE=Scum;47919424]people exist and when you put a label on them you will say that the label exists.
i'm not saying that there aren't groups of people who have more radical or more extreme views than you or i. i just don't call them that. i don't call Isis RADICAL islam. i call them isis. do u get? cos buzz words like extremism and radicalism can serve as fear mongering and as generalizing weakman fallacies and are dumb.
like it creates this great big OTHER and i think that's kind of silly and bad thinking but i don't really care if you do use them or not thou brah. i just think it's bad is all.
plus getting a bit paranoid in that last line.[/QUOTE]
Alright, let's take this sentence from earlier:
[quote]I addressed exactly what the problem is with redefining the words racism, sexism, etc. and why, most likely, social left extremists are so insistent on doing so.[/quote]
What should I have used in place of "social left extremists"? If I used "social leftists" then I would be making a sweeping generalization. If I just used "people" it wouldn't work either because then I would be making a sweeping generalization about the reasoning of everyone who defines those words that way, and that would be fallacious as well.
And don't say "you shouldn't have said that at all" because that would just prove my point about making discussion impossible.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47919452]This is exactly what I'm talking about. Someone tells you what they mean, and then you turn around and say "No, you mean this".
Obviously not all labels have to refer to a literal group of people, since he used a label and stated quite clearly that he wasn't referring to a literal group of people. If you want to continue insisting that that's what he meant, go ahead, but you aren't going to fucking get anywhere because that clearly [I]isn't[/I] what he meant.
I'm all for rooting out tribalism and fear of the other and what have you but at the end of the day those are illogical processes that can't be circumvented through the logical application of linguistics. People are still going to "fear the other" whether they refer to the people they think are a bunch of pricks as a bunch of pricks or not.[/QUOTE]
what a qt.
he said "for someone who wants to pretend that people like that don't exist"
so i done said that there are people who do stuff which you can CONSIDER IN RELATION TO YOURSELF (not objectively) extremist and radical or maybe even gosh darn sjw like, but i reckon that using extremism and radical or sjw to describe a group of people is stupid and dehumanizes anyone who may fall into that group because of the negative connotations associated with both.
because yeah it's not a literal group of people, that's the problem? you're using an abstract and subjective label that is totally based on the what the you think it means and placing it on whoever you feel deserves it. it is gross.
it's gross reification that doesn't do nothing but spread disinformation and us and them mentalities.
[editline]10th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47919486]Alright, let's take this sentence from earlier:
What should I have used in place of "social left extremists"? If I used "social leftists" then I would be making a sweeping generalization. If I just used "people" it wouldn't work either because then I would be making a sweeping generalization about the reasoning of everyone who defines those words that way, and that would be fallacious as well.
And don't say "you shouldn't have said that at all" because that would just prove my point about making discussion impossible.[/QUOTE]
specify who you're talking about instead of relying on generalizations?
There will always be an "us and them" mentality. If you think different words are going to change that, you're going to be severely disappointed.
[QUOTE=Scum;47919530]specify who you're talking about instead of relying on generalizations?[/QUOTE]
But I'm not talking about any "specific, concrete" group of people. Here's my best effort of removing the "label" of the group from the statement:
[quote]I addressed exactly what the problem is with redefining the words racism, sexism, etc. and why, most likely, the non-trivial amount of people that do so for that reason are so insistent on doing so.[/quote]
Do you want everyone to just talk like that?
[QUOTE=Scum;47919530]what a qt.
he said "for someone who wants to pretend that people like that don't exist"
so i done said that there are people who do stuff which you can CONSIDER IN RELATION TO YOURSELF (not objectively) extremist and radical or maybe even gosh darn sjw like, but i reckon that using extremism and radical or sjw to describe a group of people is stupid and dehumanizes anyone who may fall into that group because of the negative connotations associated with both.
because yeah it's not a literal group of people, that's the problem? you're using an abstract and subjective label that is totally based on the what the you think it means and placing it on whoever you feel deserves it. it is gross.
it's gross reification that doesn't do nothing but spread disinformation and us and them mentalities.
[editline]10th June 2015[/editline]
specify who you're talking about instead of relying on generalizations?[/QUOTE]
except he just fucking explained that when he says "SJW" he is referring to people who do a particular thing, not a specific group of people
If you think it's okay to be an asshole to people because of their skin color, you're an asshole. That isn't "dehumanizing" to assholes, that is just me expressing my already existent distaste for people who think that kind of shit is okay. I don't dislike them because I describe them as assholes, I dislike them because they exhibit what I define as asshole behavior.
That isn't gross. That's me explaining what I think and how I feel. If you just can't deal with people honestly expressing themselves because you feel it's "gross" then that your limitation.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47919327]When one makes a statement like "... when [___ extremists/SJW] do [action]" the only thing that needs to be taken from that statement is that the person using it believes that people who do that action are extremists/SJWs, and the only problem you should have at that point (in my opinion) of people using that term negatively is if you believe that said action is OK, and therefore are insulted that it is attributed to an extremist group (which in some cases is a fair thing to be offended by). Otherwise there should be no problem about "generalizing" because it's a subjective group in the first place, which no one unironically identifies with..
[/QUOTE]
What he's saying is that the problem with assigning modifiers rather than unique labels to those people is that you're running full-tilt into the [url=http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/]weak-man argument[/url], where you are implicitly [i]forcing[/i] the more reasonable people to take a side and it'll probably be against you because of the association you're making. No feminist will read a rant about 'extremist feminists' and say 'oh good thing I'm not an extremist, I'm sure he's okay with me', they're being tarred by association with the label and need to fight back.
Targeting subsections of tribal groups that make for easy targets is a simple way to turn the whole tribe against you and spur conflict where none is needed. Language specific to the individuals and not their identity as part of a greater whole avoids this. If your problem is with social justice activists who aim to silence voices they find objectionable, you can talk about people who engage in that behavior specifically rather than identifying them as indicative of the larger movement. Talking about 'social justice warriors' and expecting moderate social justice activists not to respond negatively because they're not 'warriors' is like talking about 'money-grubbing Jew bankers' and expecting normal Jews not to respond negatively because they're not bankers.
And it's [i]especially[/i] bad when there aren't common definitions to these terms. A rather moderate social justice-minded person could read some of the posts in the first couple of pages of this thread and wonder 'Are they talking about me? Am I this SJW they're blaming?' and feel targeted. Maybe the person had in mind someone of a more extreme ideology, but without a common definition and with the kind of definition-equivocation I talked about on the last page it's easy for people to feel like they're being targeted by a vague or implied definition.
The problem with 'SJW' and 'extremist' isn't that they're identifying specific people, it's that they're identifying specific people in relation to their identity within a larger group and facilitating definition-equivocation. If you talk about the danger of 'extremist Muslims' you are much more likely to get a negative response from moderate Muslims ('not all Muslims are like that!') than if you talk about the danger of 'jihadism'. One is a nebulous concept of 'extremism' that focuses on the Muslim identity. The other is specific to the behavior and leaves no room for confusion.
Don't use 'SJW' or 'extremist' as a boogeyman, figure out what issue they represent and speak to that.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47919587]except he just fucking explained that when he says "SJW" he is referring to people who do a particular thing, not a specific group of people
If you think it's okay to be an asshole to people because of their skin color, you're an asshole. That isn't "dehumanizing" to assholes, that is just me expressing my already existent distaste for people who think that kind of shit is okay. I don't dislike them because I describe them as assholes, I dislike them because they exhibit what I define as asshole behavior.
That isn't gross. That's me explaining what I think and how I feel. If you just can't deal with people honestly expressing themselves because you feel it's "gross" then that your limitation.[/QUOTE]
how u think and feel is gross. theres also a difference cos asshole isn't a politically charged word.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47919284]That's ironic because people who are learning a language tend to devote far more time on thinking about their word choices than L1 speakers do.[/QUOTE]
I had a roommate who was a linguistics student and one thing I've learned is that it's astonishing how often we say one thing but actually mean something completely different. We're all so comfortable with English that we're playing fast and loose with it, and assuming everyone else knows exactly what we're trying to say.
Another thing I've learned is that linguists drink a lot
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47919552]There will always be an "us and them" mentality. If you think different words are going to change that, you're going to be severely disappointed.[/QUOTE]
different viewpoints will change that and a step to that is critiquing the careless use of words which serve to perpetuate tribalist viewpoints.
sure there MIGHT always be an us and them mentality in general but that doesn't mean you need to join in? like it's a pretty defeatist way at looking at things to just say ah but there will always be that!! like you're not a psychic you're just being lazy.
[editline]10th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47919632]I had a roommate who was a linguistics student and one thing I've learned is that it's astonishing how often we say one thing but actually mean something completely different. We're all so comfortable with English that we're playing fast and loose with it, and assuming everyone else knows exactly what we're trying to say.
Another thing I've learned is that linguists drink a lot[/QUOTE]
a slurring linguist would be a nice sight
[QUOTE=Scum;47919638]different viewpoints will change that and a step to that is critiquing the careless use of words which serve to perpetuate tribalist viewpoints.
sure there MIGHT always be an us and them mentality in general but that doesn't mean you need to join in? like it's a pretty defeatist way at looking at things to just say ah but there will always be that!! like you're not a psychic you're just being lazy.[/QUOTE]
You've been pretty "us and them" all of this thread. "Us and them" isn't always wrong.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47919650]You've been pretty "us and them" all of this thread. "Us and them" isn't always wrong.[/QUOTE]
us and them against the us and them'ers oh no
[QUOTE=catbarf;47919608]What he's saying is that the problem with assigning modifiers rather than unique labels to those people is that you're running full-tilt into the [url=http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/]weak-man argument[/url], where you are implicitly [i]forcing[/i] the more reasonable people to take a side and it'll probably be against you because of the association you're making. No feminist will read a rant about 'extremist feminists' and say 'oh good thing I'm not an extremist, I'm sure he's okay with me', they're being tarred by association with the label and need to fight back.
Targeting subsections of tribal groups that make for easy targets is a simple way to turn the whole tribe against you and spur conflict where none is needed. Language specific to the individuals and not their identity as part of a greater whole avoids this. If your problem is with social justice activists who aim to silence voices they find objectionable, you can talk about people who engage in that behavior specifically rather than identifying them as indicative of the larger movement. Talking about 'social justice warriors' and expecting moderate social justice activists not to respond negatively because they're not 'warriors' is like talking about 'money-grubbing Jew bankers' and expecting normal Jews not to respond negatively because they're not bankers.
And it's [i]especially[/i] bad when there aren't common definitions to these terms. A rather moderate social justice-minded person could read some of the posts in the first couple of pages of this thread and wonder 'Are they talking about me? Am I this SJW they're blaming?' and feel targeted. Maybe the person had in mind someone of a more extreme ideology, but without a common definition and with the kind of definition-equivocation I talked about on the last page it's easy for people to feel like they're being targeted by a vague or implied definition.
The problem with 'SJW' and 'extremist' isn't that they're identifying specific people, it's that they're identifying specific people in relation to their identity within a larger group and facilitating definition-equivocation. If you talk about the danger of 'extremist Muslims' you are much more likely to get a negative response from moderate Muslims ('not all Muslims are like that!') than if you talk about the danger of 'jihadism'. One is a nebulous concept of 'extremism' that focuses on the Muslim identity. The other is specific to the behavior and leaves no room for confusion.
Don't use 'SJW' or 'extremist' as a boogeyman, figure out what issue they represent and speak to that.[/QUOTE]
This is a much more convincing argument, but again many are stuck with no real eloquent way to word certain things without resorting to word salad. I now realize that I could have used "some social leftests" and avoided both the generalization problem and the emotionally biased language problem. I'll try to keep that in mind in the future. At the same time (this is mostly aimed at Scum), when you criticize people's use of terms like SJW and Extremist, keep in mind that it might be from a lack of linguistic capability and not from the desire to emotionally charge their statements (in this topic I've had to run to an online thesaurus several times to find better words for things when the right ones wouldn't come to mind). I'm not saying not to criticize the use of such terms, but try to offer solutions as well.
[QUOTE=Scum;47919659]us and them against the us and them'ers oh no[/QUOTE]
it's just kind of a funny ironic hypocrisy that makes you hard to take seriously
[QUOTE=Scum;47919659]us and them against the us and them'ers oh no[/QUOTE]
Really though, you could summarize everything you've said in this thread as an "us and them" argument.
You've been going on about how you're not one of [I]those[/I] people who use non-descriptive insults in place of actual wit and intelligent argument, albeit with much more of a superiority complex about it. You're literally your own antithesis, lol.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.