I think you're missing the point of what "brogressives" or whatever other buzzword term you've coined for them stand for.

See, being edgy and dissident is what makes freedom of speech so valuable in a democracy, no matter how belligerent, bigoted or hateful it may be. The moment you start shutting down the discourse because it makes you personally feel uncomfortable for a couple of seconds, particularly in academia where censorship of conservative viewpoints is most prevalent, that's when we have a problem. State sponsored clamp down of ideas is not a fundamental criteria for censorship, nor will it be.

I have no issue being generally polite in a spirited debate, but I don't think that's really the dilemma here. The South Park episode was a brilliant piece of left-field humour, because by satirizing progressives as intimidating college frats they establish a sort of ironic allusion to how hypocritical progressives behave within an open discussion, especially within colleges and universities, which is supposed to be the forefront of critical thinking and exchange of ideas within contemporary society.

So no, the issue is not 'trans hatred' if that's even a predominant thought in modern Western society. The problem is the absolute censorious behemoth that is political correctness. It's stifling academia, and wrapping people up in a sort of intellectual cotton wool.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/goldsmiths-union-insists-it-isnt-racist-or-sexist-after-their-diversity-officer-banned-white-people-10200703.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/16/uc-teaching-faculty-members-not-to-criticize-race-based-affirmative-action-call-america-melting-pot-and-more/

These have little to do with political correctness and more to do with human stupidity. You can't pigeonhole idiots with people who are making the simple concession that conversational etiquette is more important than conservatives seem to think it is.

http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Interrupt_Microaggressions.pdf

I don't see the problem. In what way is it bad to have guidelines for these so-called "microaggressions"?

Conversational etiquette is really just a non term to me. It's a wolf disguising itself in sheeps clothing to curtail speech.

You have conceded that you "have no issue being generally polite in a spirited debate".

So, you either see the point of conversational etiquette, or you don't. You can't have both.

But please continue to tell me how this has nothing to do with political correctness.

All right. It has nothing to do with political correctness.

I don't see how establishing guidelines dictating how people are allowed to think and speak is any way going to advance critical thought.

Nobody is dictating how you are allowed to speak, and certainly nobody is dictating the way you are allowed to think. That's why they're called "guidelines". They are not dicta.

What I don't understand are the people who say things like "political correctness is killing us" as if being a dick and offending/marginalizing people is some sort of cornerstone of our society. Why not try to be a respectful human being?

Because being considerate and respectful to others is not conducive to critical thought.^{[citation needed]}

Does this mean the picture of the qt blonde girl we used to pass around TFS as being Cindy is actually fake?

Because I fapped to that once and I'm not happy.

her gf

Quote from: Mad Max on October 18, 2015, 12:19:12 PM

What I don't understand are the people who say things like "political correctness is killing us" as if being a dick and offending/marginalizing people is some sort of cornerstone of our society. Why not try to be a respectful human being?

Cause it forces people to not speak their true feelings and forces everyone to act fake as fuck.

Its also killing sports with all these bullshit rules and bullshit "everyones a winner" mindset.

That exists outside grade school?

Cause it forces people to not speak their true feelings and forces everyone to act fake as fuck.

That's not true, though. You don't need to be politically incorrect to speak your true feelings or avoid acting "fake as fuck". There aren't any words that I personally dislike that you'd ever need to use in order to express your opinion on anything.

I know you believe that the word "nigger" means "a contemptible or stupid black person", and that's how you use it. But why not just say "idiot"? Or "dumbass"? Why use such a racially-charged word that has such a dark history of pain and suffering and torture? I just don't see the point.

What I don't understand are the people who say things like "political correctness is killing us" as if being a dick and offending/marginalizing people is some sort of cornerstone of our society. Why not try to be a respectful human being?

Because it's not really anyone's place to dictate what is and isn't acceptable to say and think.

There's a stark difference between going up to a black person and yelling nigger in their face or just simply harassing them for being black, and saying black people are subordinate to whites. The latter is a legitimately disgusting thing to say, yes, but your best tool for combating that kind of speech is open discourse and mockery, not by shutting down what they have to say.

Because it's not really anyone's place to dictate what is and isn't acceptable to say and think.

Again--nobody is doing this. All the "PC" crowd wants is for people to be considerate--nothing more. If you want to be an inconsiderate prick, you're free to do so--but that doesn't preclude our ability to call you what you are. If you call a black person a "nigger," don't expect anything less than total public castigation. And you would deserve it.

There's a stark difference between going up to a black person and yelling nigger in their face or just simply harassing them for being black, and saying black people are subordinate to whites. The latter is a legitimately disgusting thing to say, yes, but your best tool for combating that kind of speech is open discourse and mockery, not by shutting down what they have to say.

Which nobody is doing.

Nobody is saying, "You can't say this"--they're saying, "Don't say this."

By no means are you obliged to listen.

I think it should be pointed out that the transgender discussion is far from settled.

Asking people not to call trans folks tranny queers is one thing.

Treating it as an attack if someone refuses to recognize a person's *preferred* gender is another entirely.

I dunno, you wouldn't mind if everyone started referring to you as a "she"? That wouldn't bother you?

It would be great if the English language had some kind of gender neutral pronoun other than "it" (which, of course, implies that you're referring to an inanimate object), but we don't. If someone feels more comfortable being referred to with a certain term, I don't see any problem in respecting their wishes. If it makes you feel weird, that's your problem.

It would be objectively false to refer to me as she. I am biologically male.

If I were biologically male but preferred to be referred to as she, then there's a discussion to be had.

"Biologically" and "preferred" are the keywords, aren't they?

I take it you believe that biological sex takes priority over personal preference.

Is there any logical reason to have reached that conclusion, though?

My main concern is the censorship ma-bobby.

In your example it's perfectly reasonable to not be a cunt because someone's this or that, whether or not you have the freedom of speech to say it.

The problem lies when people try to give valid criticism, and when they can't (or simply won't) answer to it, they can claim it's insensitive or offensive and block off reasonable discourse about the topic simply because it entails some controversial topic.

E.g. I used to know nothing regarding trans people, how or why they felt that way, methods of going about changing, etc, etc until around last year (mostly because of this place). But I can't just ask a question about in case I offend someone because it might have something behind it that may offend someone.

I'd like to understand at the cost of a few slip-ups and offending some people so I can get a good view on the topic and discuss it like most want to and maybe even accept it, rather than remaining in the dark, not discussing it and blindly accepting by faith just to keep people happy. If someone wants honest discussion, you don't go into it with no facts whatsoever and blurt out whatever some biased party (on either side) has said.

Well, I kinda tried to cover that in the main post, but I guess I didn't do a good job at addressing that - only talking about the inverse.

Yeah, I believe it's pretty stupid to shut down any discourse about a person just because it may or may not be offensive to them. The type of people who scream "educate yourself" and then offer no solution piss me off as much as the ignorant type who refuse to learn anything new on the subject.

But the thing is - it has to be a relevant question. If you're legitimately asking questions or trying to clear up things about a trans person, then that's fine, but if you're getting upset at people for shutting you down when you ask why it's not okay for you to call a trans person slurs and purposefully misgender them - and refuse to listen to the reasons why - then that's very different.