I'm simply commenting on the dynamics and the politics of the debate. I haven't said anything about God or evil-doers, this is a thread about 'political correctness', and you can't deny that in this matter, 'political correctness' is a huge factor.

Read the link about Brendan Eich - he was fired as the head of Mozilla Corporation, which he had helped found, because it was discovered that he donated to Proposition 8 some years previously. That is an example of what I mean by 'ostracism'. Under anti-discrimination laws, many people will be required and obliged to support same-sex marriage, whether they want to or not; if they try not to support it, by, for example, not providing services to same-sex weddings, they will be subjected to legal action and even vilification — Wayfarer

Brendan Eich is an interesting case, and it's probably a good one to debate to see where people stand on this issue. It seems to me he was fired directly for ruthless business reasons and only indirectly for supporting proposition 8, which I think poses a problem for those on the right. Being against homosexual rights is a loser in the marketplace of ideas and is therefore a loser in the marketplace proper. For those enamored of markets the question should be asked: "Why should we prop up a losing idea any more than we should prop up a losing product?"

It seems to me [Eich] was fired directly for ruthless business reasons and only indirectly for supporting proposition 8 — Baden

What do you mean? That supporing Proposition 8 was bad for business, so he had to be fired?

Being against homosexual rights is a loser in the marketplace of ideas and is therefore a loser in the marketplace proper. — Baden

Oh, I get it. So when I shop, I should know the position of the company I'm buying from on gay marriage. Maybe we could have a sticker, like they do for kilojoules, or heart safety? You know, a little rainbow flag with a thumbs up. 'Gay friendly', like dolphin-safe tuna.

So canning the plebiscite and passing the law by an act of Parliament is tantamount to 'outlawing debate' — Wayfarer

Really?

'Outlawing debate' means, literally, that those who debate it are outlaws, ie are breaking the law, and will therefore be liable to a criminal punishment.

You know that.

How many anti-(gay-marriage) campaigners have been arrested so far this year in Australia for expressing their views?

BTW do you like my parentheses? That's how far I'm prepared to go to make the point that I don't believe being against gay-marriage means that people are anti-gay! Hyphens are not associative.

OK, not literally outlawing. It's the argument that having a debate on the plebiscite is an opportunity for hate speech, and that, therefore, there ought not to be a plebiscite - that is what both Labor and the Greens have said, the Greens have it on their website as public policy.

Do you agree?

How many anti-(gay-marriage) campaigners have been arrested so far this year in Australia for expressing their views?

Last year, the Tasmanian Catholic Archdiocese circulated a pamphlet called 'Don't Mess with Marriage'. A lawsuit was launched against it, by an LGBT activist although it was subsequently withdrawn. But it's safe to say, it is, and will remain, a highly litigous area.

conservatives* tend to use the term PC exclusively as a pejorative i.e. they allow for no distinction between PC and excessive PC — Baden

Yes, indeed the OP is unclear on this point. The first sentence complains about excessive political correctness, and the video from Joe Rogan is a complaint against people who perpetrate such excesses. Nobody can reasonably deny that there are such people.

But then the last paragraph complains about political correctness without the 'excessive' qualifier. That makes somebody like me, who loathes excessive political correctness, and the sort of sanctimonious point-scoring activity that Rogan is talking about, but is passionately in favour of (what I consider to be) reasonable political correctness, CONFUSED.

yes it was all about "excessive" pc if you want to call it that. What I wouldn't call excessive PC, I would call implicit PC. That is, it is so fundamental to good manners and being a considerate person that it doesn't even need to be stated... the problem is is that the line is VERY easily blured because the people who practise excessive PC will claim that they are practicing implicit PC. That is, it is so fundamental to good manners and being a considerate person that it doesn't even need to be stated...

@Wayfarer. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that almost anybody can launch a lawsuit, for almost any reason. Assuming that the pamphlet did not actually express any hate (and I doubt it did, though I've not seen it) I am confident that, if the suit had not been withdrawn, it would have been denied and costs awarded against the litigant.

If the pamphlet was a sincere and non-hateful expression of deeply-held beliefs, I would class the litigation as 'excessive' political correctness. It's on the other side of where I'd draw the line.

I think the 'excessive' is crucial.

I would like there to be able to be a mature, non-hysterical debate, without either side casting aspersions on the character of the other. But I don't want a plebiscite.

Nobody has offered a plebiscite on right-to-die legislation, an issue that is very dear to my heart. Based on polls, it seems that right-to-die legislation would easily be approved if a plebiscite were held, while it will be a very long time coming if it has to go through parliament, because of (1) the unrepresentatively high number of Christians in parliament and (2) the fear of all politicians of the power of ginger groups like the Australian Christian Lobby.

But I don't blame the failure of governments to hold a plebiscite on this issue on political correctness, or on anything else. I just accept that it's one of the many unfortunate consequences of living in a democracy. As Churchill said, it's the worst form of government, except for the others.

Do you agree that the plebiscite ought to be cancelled because the debate will encourage hate speech?

What do you mean? That supporing Proposition 8 was bad for business, so he had to be fired? — Wayfarer

I mean what I said. That's why he was fired. If supporting proposition 8 had been good for business, he wouldn't have been.

Oh, I get it. So when I shop, I should know the position of the company I'm buying from on gay marriage. Maybe we could have a sticker, like they do for kilojoules, or heart safety? You know, a little rainbow flag with a thumbs up. 'Gay friendly', like dolphin-safe tuna. — Wayfarer

I made a factual observation. You attack a (rather absurd) proposition. Is there anything I actually said that you disagree with?

If supporting proposition 8 had been good for business, he wouldn't have been. — Baden

So, your 'factual observation' is that Brendan Eich was sacked as the head of Mozilla (Eich being one of the founders of the company, and the inventor of Javascript, for those who might not know), on the basis of the fact that his support for Proposition 8 was 'bad for business'.

Does it follow from that, that what is 'good for business' is, therefore, morally sound?

Well, if it causes you not to insult and belittle others because of your beliefs, that is all that can be expected from a civil code, and at least it will mean that outwardly, you are at least civil. — Wayfarer

Yes that's a civil code - I was talking about political correctness. The two are different. The civil code should be there - political correctness shouldn't be a means of artificially legislating something.


The same old progressive tropes in this thread: "stay home, don't vote, while we take your country away, and impose our values on you". Look Ben Carson was right - these progressives don't care - all they want to do really is impose their values on society, they can care less about the religious folks, or tolerance, or anything of this sort. They don't only want to live a certain way - they want all the rest of us to worship and approve of their way of life. And the only reason why they're winning is because they have learned to play the morality card against religious believers. This has got to stop - we have to get smart.

Which is what you argue God does to evil doers, and is thus the most just way to handle them, wouldn't you then be saying by implication? It's their fault after all. You're really good at it being different when it's you. — Wosret

Yes do you think we should go around playing God huh?

So, does it follow from that, that what is 'good for business' is, therefore, morally sound? — Wayfarer

Absolutely not*, in my view, but that's precisely the sort of argument that tends to get proffered by those on the right -if not always directly- which was the point of difficulty for them I was getting at. The market is very often presented by conservatives as a kind of a moral arbiter that will come up with the right answer if given the chance, until and unless it's an answer they don't like.

*Though of course the obverse doesn't follow either, that what is good for business, including Eich's firing, is morally unsound.

Right. So my view is that Eich's sacking was an egregious example of the ostracism of a competent businessman, for holding a politically incorrect view regarding a sensitive topic. You might not agree, but at least I am being clear about it.

I was talking about political correctness. The two are different. The civil code should be there - political correctness shouldn't be a means of artificially legislating something. — Agostino

What I took you to be saying, was that efforts to legislate how one should behave with regards to others, will fail to affect what you really think about them. But the attempt by the polity to legislate what one ought or ought not to think is the origin of 'political correctness'. Political correctness is, after all, the expression of opinions which it is assumed that no right-thinking person ought to hold. So it kind of an assumed consensus.

Societies differ not only across nations but over time in terms of people's attitudes. Not only is that self-evident, it has been empirically demonstrated. What you seem to be doing here is taking the obvious truth that some people cannot be made to change their attitudes over short periods of time, and trying to derive the obvious falsity that there is no possibility of development in social attitudes. — Baden

And what you seem to neglect is that there is a difference between people's attitudes changing over time, and us or anyone else engineering such a change over time. My claim in this case is that we cannot engineer it. Now, the more important point is that while some attitudes do change, the core of people's morality remains the same - regardless of geographical position or time period. Take sexual morality - pretty much identical in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, even though these religions arose in vastly different places, in vastly different circumstances. All condemn adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality, etc. You ignore the fact that some attitudes are perennial - nothing you will do will ever change this.

I'm not claiming political correctness will rid us of the power hungry. — Baden

Good so then you think it's good that we institute a mechanism which will only aid the power hungry?

What I took you to be saying, was that efforts to legislate how one should behave with regards to others, will fail to affect what you really think about them. But the attempt by the polity to legislate what one ought or ought not to think is the origin of 'political correctness'. Political correctness is, after all, the expression of opinions which it is assumed that no right-thinking person ought to hold. So it kind of an assumed consensus. — Wayfarer

A law can be questioned - that's why ultimately there is nothing wrong with it. Political correctness is self-righteous and self-justifying - it cannot be questioned, hence why there is something wrong with it.

Yes, and because it will be a massive waste of public money, whose sole purpose is for Turnbull (the PM) to avoid a rift within his own party between the hard-right and the moderates. There is no reason why the Australian taxpayer should fork out 182 million to help the Liberal Party (Aust Conservative Party) avoid making difficult decisions. Bear in mind that the only reason the plebiscite becomes an issue at all is because the Coalition refuses to allow a conscience vote.

Right. So my view is that Eich's sacking was an egregious example of the ostracism of a competent businessman, for holding a politically incorrect view regarding a sensitive topic. You might not agree, but at least I am being clear about it. — Wayfarer

I'm not going to argue with you about who's being more clear about what we're arguing about. I hadn't got on to my personal view of Eich's case yet. I think it's a complicated. Firstly, I don't think that there is anything wrong in principle in sacking a CEO who is homophobic (or racist or etc.) And I think most people would agree with that. I also don't think there is necessarily something wrong with sacking someone who has created the image of themselves as being homophobic (or etc) even if it's not clear that they actually are (a CEO of a business has a responsibility to protect the image of his business, and part of that responsibility is to protect his own image). Eich's case is difficult because his opposition to proposition 8 along with other actions he had taken in the past could be seen to have created the perception that he was homophobic. On the other hand, that perception was based on a quickly changing Zeitgeist with regard to homosexual rights; and an environment where talented people are barred from being CEOs because of something they did in the past, which was less objectionable then but has become more so now, could be deemed more regressive than progressive.

Also, Eich wasn't actually sacked, he resigned in the end because he had lost the battle to clear himself of the charge of homophobia. So, there is an argument to be made that the attacks on him were fair game- that gay activists and their supporters have a right to look out for their interests, and that it was up to him to look out for his interests by presenting a strong enough defense against them, which in the end he didn't. Unfortunately in public ideological battles the truth tends to get lost on both sides, so I think the question of whether Eich is actually homophobic or not is beyond anyone's knowledge here. If he is, he deserved his fate; if he isn't, he didn't.

Good so then you think it's good that we institute a mechanism which will only aid the power hungry? — Agustino

I think it would be good if we instituted a mechanism where loaded questions were automatically deleted by the software here.

these progressives ..... - all they want to do really is impose their values on society — Agustino

Dead right. Which is exactly the same as what the conservatives want to do. So we are in honourable opposition to one another in the marketplace of ideas, and the one that can wield rhetoric the most effectively will win. I hope it's my side, and I expect you hope it's yours.

they can care less about the religious folks, — Agustino

This too is true. I care a great deal about some conservatives, despite my disagreeing with them. Some of them are friends, some are family, and I love them. So it's certainly true that I could care less than I currently do about them.

Or did you mean to say 'they can't care less about the religious folks', which would be a way of saying they don't care about them at all.

Trump seems to go against Political Correctness every chance he gets.

Political Correctness's targets are segments of the population, The prevailing powers dictate and provide cogent reason for what is 'correct' or 'not-correct' to say or do. Correct here means according to them. The Establishment, is in a meaning full way (what is the cost of a gallon of milk?) unconscious of the common man, the very persons with whom Trump has tried to identify. The incestuousness of the Establishment's thought may be its ultimate downfall, my guess.

But regardless of how you were raised or your ability to withstand that kind of treatment, you are on average better off as a minority having more of this capital redistributed in your favour, and political correctness is definitely an element in that equation. That doesn't mean we are not free to say what we think, what it means is that there is a penalty for saying things that are reflective of a less equal distribution of social power. In other words, your reward for stigmatizing or denigrating others is to experience the same sort of thing yourself. — Baden

Why isn't being defined as a "minority" offensive? I would be offended at being defined as a minority which then implies that I need this redistribution of resources. It belittles me and makes me feel more inferior. The fact is everyone has been turned down by a job, has been called a name and has been on the receiving end of racism and sexism. There is also the fact that not all "minorities" are offended by this kind of speech. Only some are - and this difference needs to be accounted for - not discredited - if you actually want to get at the truth of why people are offended.

Yes do you think we should go around playing God huh? — Agustino

Who's playing? :D

Those who want to overturn moral traditions :)

People say that, but I think that not being a selfish, oppressive Pharisee has always been a more important tradition.

Politics obey the Law of Contention which is the aggressive enforcement of the principle of the excluded middle. Its the same systems logic of a flock of chickens where see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil becomes an end unto itself prompting many to mock their own political system and the mindless masses. For example, in Italy one province elected a popular porn star to office who fought for them in ways that nobody else could have, while it is now illegal to vote for Mickey Mouse in the state of Maryland. If Americans could vote for Mickey today he could embarrass the hell out of both parties and chickens are nothing if not the masters of acting indignant.

Why isn't being defined as a "minority" offensive? I would be offended at being defined as a minority which then implies that I need this redistribution of resources. It belittles me and makes me feel more inferior. — Harry Hindu

Social capital is either distributed equally or it's not. If it's not then your personal offense at it being redistributed in your favour is outweighed by the lack of offense other members of minority groups feel at it being redistributed in theirs. It's generally easier to get over being advantaged than being disadvantaged.

The fact is everyone has been turned down by a job, has been called a name and has been on the receiving end of racism and sexism — Harry Hindu

No, that is not a fact.

There is also the fact that not all "minorities" are offended by this kind of speech. Only some are - and this difference needs to be accounted for - not discredited - if you actually want to get at the truth of why people are offended. — Harry Hindu

What kind of speech, exactly? It would be a mistake to lump all non-PC speech together as if it has a singular effect. People are offended by different things at different levels. Very few people are not offended by any kind of racist or sexist speech, for example. If you aren't, good for you. But that doesn't mean you should get to decide that other people shouldn't be offended by it.

@Baden - there's a very low bar for homophobia, which you immediately classify with racism. It illustrates the point - agreement or ostracism, there is no space for dissent.

because it will be a massive waste of public money... — AndrewK

The question we were discussing was whether the opposition to a plebiscite was based on the desire to suppress or avoid a public debate on the issue - not whether a plebiscite is a good idea.

But I think the real issue is that, discussion of whether same-sex marriage ought to be legalised implies that there is something about it that needs to be discussed. But then, it seems to be assumed that anyone who opposes must be, 'anti-gay', i.e. homophobic. So allowing discussion is distressing to the gay community because it allows 'the homophobes' to have their say. And as the point of the legislation is to provide the gay community with approbation and support, then it is cruel and inhumane to even discuss it.

There's a story about this very point in relation to the Irish referendum in today's SMH. (Also some salient commentary on the same by Brendan O'Neill, here.)

After all, anyone who opposes it is, or must be, 'anti-gay', i.e. homophobic. — Wayfarer

I have already indicated that I am aware that some in the pro-(gay-marriage) movement say that, and that I disagree with them. If making such nasty accusations were an instance of PC, I would say that it's an instance of excessive PC. But I'm inclined to think that in that case it's more primal than PC - just a hatred of the enemy (in this case the Christians) and a refusal to see their humanity.

some salient commentary on the same by Brendan O'Neill — Wayfarer

No thanks. Brendan O'Neill is in my William Lane Craig category. In the past I read plenty of what he wrote because he was clearly intelligent and I wanted to understand the views of somebody that was intelligent but had a different view from me. But after a while I realised that the intelligence was simply directed towards trying to ram his prejudices down other people's throats, so I decided to waste no more time on any of his (Craig's or O'Neill's) outpourings. Why would I spend time reading such a thing when I've not yet read Breakfast at Tiffany's?

If I want to hear some intelligent commentary from the right I go to William S Buckley, GK Chesterton or Auberon Waugh. The fact that they are all long gone says something sad about the state of public debate. I used to rate Gerard Henderson, but he jumped the shark around the middle of Howard's prime ministership.

More than that: to oppose is to actively call for gay relationships to be considered lesser. This is what is considered inhuman. The issue is not merely that people might get "offended" or "distressed," but that opposition to same-sex marriage is a denial of value and right to gay people. It is, itself, anti-gay. They aren't assumed to be homophobic. Their policy is inherently so.

To make the point clear, with this policy and value, the gay Christian is unable to have there relationship recognised under God. Its entire point is to discriminate against gay people.

The question we were discussing was whether the opposition to a plebiscite was based on the desire to suppress or avoid a public debate on the issue - not whether a plebiscite is a good idea. — Wayfarer

The problem is that even if there is a plebiscite it is not likely there will be any rational public debate on the issue; just the usual trumpet-blowing of the partisans on either side that will probably be the substance of at least the 'against' if not the 'for' ad campaigns, each estimated to cost $10,000,000, and each designed to convert the other side; but which will arguably only be 'preaching to the converted" and a total waste of taxpayers' money that could be spent far more wisely elsewhere. This is not to mention the $160,000,000 estimated cost of the plebiscite itself.

Here are some poll figures:
Galaxy Research polling (2009-2012) shows:

64% of Australians support marriage equality,
A majority of Christians (53%) support marriage equality,
76% of Coalition voters want Abbott to allow a conscience vote,
75% believe the reform is inevitable, and
81% of young people (18-24 years) support marriage equality.

These figures are a significant advance on 2004 figures, when a Newspoll commissioned by SBS found that 38% of Australians supported the reform.
Other polls, not commissioned by AME:

SMH/Nielsen poll, December 2011: 81% of Australians want Coalition MPs to have a conscience vote on marriage equality.
SMH/Nielson poll, November 2011: 62% of Australians support marriage equality.
News Ltd poll, mid-August 2011: 7 in 10 Australians support marriage equality.
Roy Morgan poll, early August 2011: 78% of Australians believe the institution of marriage is still necessary.
Roy Morgan poll, early August 2011: 68% of Australians support marriage equality.
News Ltd poll, December 2010: 65% of Australians support marriage equality or don’t mind either way.

Polling of gay & lesbian community on marriage equality:

Not Yet Equal Report, 2005: 98% want legal recognition of same sex relationships.
All Love is Equal Report, 2007: 86.3% want to have the right to marry.
Not so Private Lives Report, 2010: 54.7% overall would marry if they could.
Not so Private Lives Report, 2010: 80.8% of those with children <5 would marry if they could.
Not so Private Lives Report, 2010: 66.7% of 18-19 year olds would marry if they could.
Not so Private Lives Report, 2010: 62.8% of 20-29 year olds would marry if they could.
Not Yet Equal Report, 2005: Only 15% would have a civil union if it were available.

Homosexual relationships are already recognized in much the same ways as heterosexual relationships when it comes to the civil laws governing de facto relationships.

Many marriages are secular civil unions today anyway where the actual ceremonies are not conducted in Church or other religious institutions.

Under marriage equality laws churches will not be compelled to marry any couple.

It is all about equality under the law. Prejudice against someone on account of their sexuality is bigotry as much as prejudice against them on account of gender or skin colour is. This is not something that even should be thought to be up for debate, under any reasoned view.

So, the proposed plebiscite is a bad idea because it will be an egregiously wasteful drain on the public purse, and the self-righteous conservative campaign will arguably offend or even hurt innocent people by implicit or explicit vilification. Wayfarer and Agustino; I bet you would sing a different tune if your sons or daughters were gay.

What I have said might seem somewhat off-topic, because it doesn't deal directly with PC. But PC despite its excesses (which are usually due to overweening attentiveness to any behavior which might be thought to even carry a whiff of vilification, and which in some cases does arguably stifle debates which need to be had) is designed to protect innocents from being vilified on account of merely being who they are. Let's not forget that it is innocent people not institutions that need protection from the common human tendency to indulge in bullying and mindless hatred.