The context was social pressure against speech, wasn't it? (I would hope there wouldn't be a requirement to specify the context in every sentence, because that would be a pain in the butt to type)

So?

So that's what I'm talking about re mob mentality.

Let's review your argument:

You put forward as one of the reasons why you are opposed to social pressure against certain types of speech, that you are opposed to mob mentality.

You then say that for you 'mob mentality' means something that other people describe as cooperation.

Then you say that words to the effect of 'towards applying social pressure against certain types of speech' are implicitly appended to 'cooperation', because of the context.

With those explanations, the reason you gave why:
....you are opposed to social pressure against certain types of speech
is that
.... you are opposed to cooperation towards applying social pressure against certain types of speech.

Do you see the problem?

Looks like this is about ... whatshisname ... er ... kopper? Something Pooper? POPPER!

The issue of whether to tolerate those who are intolerable.

It wasn't an argument. Just a further explanation.

I also didn't say that I'm only against mob mentality with respect to reactions against speech, but I wasn't defining it as cooperation, either. The intent wasn't to define mob mentality as if you're a robot or alien who hasn't the faintest idea what I might be referring to. For some reason you decided to approach it that way and not pay any attention to context for that part.

But I wasn't presenting an argument per se and certainly not something in the vein of a mathematics or logical proof. So I don't want to encourage you to take that sort of track. That's completely the wrong way to look at what anyone is doing when it comes to ethics.

I think nobody has a problem if someone is politically correct when talking about minorities. If someone sees this as a 'political lithurgy', that shouldn't annoy them too much.

Basically the criticism is towards the aggressive crybullying when people are attacked as being racists with the objective to silence the other one.

There's a big difference in saying "I disagree with your views" and saying "I am deeply offended by your views".

Political correctness is a symptom of a much larger and more serious problem - the lack of coherent social norms. We are in a struggle to establish social norms.

Us versus them is one of our oldest stories. The problem is that now some of the boundaries that have divided us no longer exist, and so they must be maintained "in principle", most often along the lines of religious and political ideologies, and framed in terms of freedom and rights, (although not always for all).

There is talk in some places of unity , but such unity is nothing more than us unified against them, and who is or is not one of us is ever changing. And so, some of the objection to PC comes from those who object to criticism of language that does not exclude those they want to exclude. But this gets buried under the excessiveness of those who do not want to exclude or offend for any possible reason.

PC is an attempt to control the discourse, but often appears in the guise of its opposite - anti-PC. Restrictions on what can and cannot be said and how it should be said or not said does not change people's attitudes and actions. At best it leads to the increased use of euphemisms and code (and also accusations of code where none was intended). At worse it leads to an attitude of hypersensitivity to offense and intolerance in the name of tolerance.

Hear, hear. Some of it is so petty, and counterproductive, and undeserving of respect. Here on this forum I live out my principles which clash with principles of political correctness. I do respect way more someone who says it how it is, or who remains on point, then someone who tone polices, or virtue signals, or calls you names like rude or unsophisticated, or who tries to repress your freedom of expression. Fuck etiquette.

Stepping on some toes without always saying whose. Sorry in advance. — MindForged

Don't be.

I think etiquette is a safeguard against people who are too stupid to get along. Like how you are not supposed to talk about religion and politics. Its because people are too stupid to be trusted to have those conversations...even though they are two of the main things people SHOULD be talking about.

many people acting in conjunction with each other to a particular end, and that's what I'm referring to by "mob mentality."
— Terrapin Station

Under that definition, a group of Amish collaborating to raise a barn is an instance of mob mentality. — andrewk

Nicely done.

I think etiquette is a safeguard against people who are too stupid to get along. Like how you are not supposed to talk about religion and politics. Its because people are too stupid to be trusted to have those conversations...even though they are two of the main things people SHOULD be talking about. — DingoJones

I think that that can definitely be one underlying motive. It can be used to avoid controversy and arguments and to protect the feelings of people who don't have stoical control over themselves and their emotions. This to me seems counterproductive and antithetical to the right way of approaching philosophy.

Someone posted a video in another discussion where Bruce Lee slaps his pupil on the head whenever he does something wrong. Is that politically correct? I'm sure that some people would be up in arms over that sort of thing. But I appreciate what he was doing. And so does the pupil, even though it angers him at one point.

Lol, sometimes thats what people need. Slap the PC right outta them.

Lol, sometimes thats what people need. Slap the PC right outta them. — DingoJones

This is a brilliant and funny example of political correctness exposed:



Her reaction is priceless. I hated YouTubers until I found iDubbbz. Or rather, I still do hate YouTubers, but with the exception of iDubbbz. If you don't know the background and want to know more, then I recommend watching his video on Tana Mongeau. And his video on the Joke Police, for example, makes a good case against political correctness.

We actually had an example of the Joke Police here on this forum recently in The Lounge section. It was pretty funny. "A joke? In what sense?" - Amity.

This is also relevant: Comedian refused to sign 'behavioural agreement' before gig .

Lol, didnt see THAT coming.

Fuck etiquette. — S

I think etiquette is a safeguard against people who are too stupid to get along. — DingoJones

This misses the bigger picture. It is not about etiquette, although etiquette is certainly a part of it.

It is about social norms, which include but are not limited to behavior. They include values, allegiances, and our relations to others. In short, how are we going to live together?

We live in a time in which social norms have broken down. We are in the process of making repairs. PC is one means by which we are doing this. The extremes, which tend to get the most attention, do not tell the story. What deserves our attention is not the extreme answers but the question they attempt to answer: what should our social norms be?

This misses the bigger picture. It is not about etiquette, although etiquette is certainly a part of it.

It is about social norms, which include but are not limited to behavior. They include values, allegiances, and our relations to others. In short, how are we going to live together?

We live in a time in which social norms have broken down. We are in the process of making repairs. PC is one means by which we are doing this. The extremes, which tend to get the most attention, do not tell the story. What deserves our attention is not the extreme answers but the question they attempt to answer: what should our social norms be? — Fooloso4

Sure, etiquette is only part of it. I never said that it's the whole story, did I? You only quoted one little sentence out of everything that I said. You quoted me out of context. I also mentioned principles, respect, pettiness, frankness, tone policing, virtue signalling, and remaining on point. I gave examples where actions, language, emotional reactions, intelligence, manipulation, attempts to control what people do and say, freedom of expression, liberalism, authoritarianism, and morality, are all very relevant. I spoke of underlying motive and stoical control.

In answer to the question of how we're going to live together, I would say preferably without so much politically correct bullshit, at least as far as my social circle goes. There seem to be a lot of implicit assumptions in what you're saying. Breaking down social norms must be a bad thing? Repairing them must be a good thing? Political correctness is the right way of doing this?

Social norms aren't the be-all and end-all. I'll do what I have to get by, but I'm not going to just pander to the status quo. I don't like being fake and insincere, and I don't like the repression of language and humour. Just because something is shocking, that doesn't mean that it's wrong. Some of the most valuable things are shocking. It can take the form of music, comedy, and art. I love me some Marilyn Manson, Sex Pistols, The Distillers, Nirvana, Courtney Love, Frankie Boyle, and Stewart Lee.

Sure, etiquette is only part of it. I never said that it's the whole story, did I? — S

It is not about you. You expressed a common sentiment.

In answer to the question of how we're going to live together, I would say preferably without so much politically correct bullshit. — S

What alternative do you favor?

Breaking down social norms must be a bad thing? — S

No. The problem is living without them may be. I do not have high hopes for everybody trying to figure it out for himself.

Repairing them must be a good thing? — S

I think so but I also think that it is an inevitable thing. People figure out how to live together. Just what that might look like is anyone's guess.

Political correctness is the right way of doing this? — S

No, as I said, it is a symptom.

Social norms aren't the be-all and end-all. — S

It should be pointed out that we are not at the point where social norms no longer exist. They are in transition. What they will be is what is in question. That they will be is also in question.

As to whether we can do away with them, I don't think so. We are a socially organizing organism facing the question of what the organizational change we are going through should look like, how it should develop. It is going to be a bumpy road with excesses and mistakes, but I am hopeful that it is not the end of the road.

I'll do what I have to get by, but I'm not going to just pander to the status quo. — S

One of the points I am trying to make is that there is no status quo, only a struggle over what will become the status quo. And in time it too must be challenged. But first it must be created. This is where we are.

One of the points I am trying to make is that there is no status quo, only a struggle over what will become the status quo. — Fooloso4

A lot of PC people think of it like this about the struggle part. It's a power play: you exert power by getting people to adapt your discourse or ideas by arguing that they are otherwise against minorities etc.

Otherwise, customs and language naturally change by time.

The video has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with embarrassing a minor celebrity who has made past racist comments.

Btw, it's a bit naff to constantly go on about how cool and rebellious you are.

People should be allowed, even encouraged, to express, rather than censor, their stupid opinions and racist humour, so as to reveal, rather than keep hidden and festering, their toxic idiocy and unthinking characterizations of others. Wouldn't you prefer Trump. for example, to make clear his zenophobia and his desire to promote it in others, than to keep it and the agenda it motivates well hidden? The mighty Slavoj agrees!

https://qz.com/398723/slavoj-zizek-thinks-political-correctness-is-exactly-what-perpetuates-prejudice-and-racism/

Sure, etiquette is only part of it. I never said that it's the whole story, did I?
— S

It is not about you. You expressed a common sentiment. — Fooloso4

It's about what I said and you quoting it out of context. If you have nothing meaningful to say about that then let's move on.

In answer to the question of how we're going to live together, I would say preferably without so much politically correct bullshit.
— S

What alternative do you favor? — Fooloso4

What are you talking about? I just told you what I'd favour.

No. The problem is living without them may be. I do not have high hopes for everybody trying to figure it out for himself. — Fooloso4

Who cares about "maybe"? In some cases, it's not bad to break down social norms, it's actually good, and that's where I have a problem with political correctness, which seeks to maintain them.

I think so but I also think that it is an inevitable thing. People figure out how to live together. Just what that might look like is anyone's guess. — Fooloso4

Rather, it can be a good thing. Sometimes it is better to scrap the social norm or replace it with something better. It's called progress.

No, as I said, it is a symptom. — Fooloso4

A symptom of an illness, yes.

It should be pointed out that we are not at the point where social norms no longer exist. — Fooloso4

Obviously. You don't need to point that out.

That they will be is also in question. — Fooloso4

No it isn't.

As to whether we can do away with them, I don't think so. — Fooloso4

Neither do I. Not altogether. That's obvious. But a particular social norm? Yes, that's possible.

One of the points I am trying to make is that there is no status quo, only a struggle over what will become the status quo. And in time it too must be challenged. But first it must be created. This is where we are. — Fooloso4

Of course there's a status quo. Don't be absurd.

People should be allowed, even encouraged, to express, rather than censor, their stupid opinions and racist humour, so as to reveal, rather than keep hidden and festering, their toxic idiocy and unthinking characterizations of others. Wouldn't you prefer Trump. for example, to make clear his zenophobia and his desire to promote it in others, than to keep it and the agenda it motivates well hidden? — Janus

Exactly.

A lot of PC people think of it like this about the struggle part. It's a power play: you exert power by getting people to adapt your discourse or ideas by arguing that they are otherwise against minorities etc. — ssu

Of course its a power play! Politics is always a power play. We need to pay attention to how it is being played. It is not just those who are accused of being PC who are playing. The term itself has become a way to suppress discourse and ideas. This was a key play. A way of dismissing what runs contrary to the way one thinks things should be.

One problem is that the way things have been framed pro free speech is seen by many to mean anti-PC. If you are anti-PC then you will be against all the things the PC are defending and promoting. All you need to know is that is is PC and you can dismiss it without a second thought. Every "progressive" change that has been brought about in recent years in the move toward equality has been labelled PC.

It trivializes the issue if one thinks it is just about what words shouldn't be said or what jokes should not be told. By doing so one misses the power play. One is pushed to take sides. As if a myriad of complex issues is reduced to a label.

Otherwise, customs and language naturally change by time. — ssu

Yes, they do, but political change is rarely a peaceful and harmonious transition. It does not take place on its own without social and political action. The direction of that change is what is in question.

Of course its a power play! Politics is always a power play. We need to pay attention to how it is being played. It is not just those who are accused of being PC who are playing. - All you need to know is that is is PC and you can dismiss it without a second thought. — Fooloso4

Actually, this shows perfectly the agressive PC attitude (contrary from the polite PC stance). It's starts from the idea that debate is only a power play, it's not about engaging in other views. It assumes that the opposition uses exactly the same methods that it does, starting from things like "you can dismiss things without a second thought". That you could listen to what others say, then try to find weaknesses in their argument, convince the audience that your reasoning is better and trust that the audience can pick the correct/better argument is something quite strange with the PC crowd.

Is similar tactics used by the right? Sure, just look at the debate about 'Cultural Marxism' and then look at the people who are described as 'cultural marxists' and what they actually say. Does the right portray the aggressive PC crowd a bigger issue than they are? Some times likely: just like how the 'alt-right' seems to be everywhere by others. Yet the truth is that people on both sides of the political divide are annoyed by the victimhood tactics and crybullying of the agressive PC people. A lot of those critical about PC culture are leftist otherwise, hence even to talk about a PC / anti-PC juxtaposition is a bit confusing.

The problem is the arguments are so weak, there is nothing worthwhile to them at all. This is what is obnoxious about both sidesism.

When the Left get-up to make a point about the moral seriousness of a cultural practice, the both sidesism paints like they are nazis to dare hold society responsible for these practices.

In this context, "compromise" is largely red-herring because the issues at stake or moral. There is no way to negotiate, for example, over whether whether white people are better than everyone else and we take any one else not to properly belong. The issues of divsion are so devisive because they ones involving a critical moral responsibility.

The problem is the arguments are so weak, there is nothing worthwhile to them at all. This is what is obnoxious about both sidesism. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You mean the whole debate is so irrelevant, not much to even discuss it or what?

When the Left get-up to make a point about the moral seriousness of a cultural practice, the both sidesism paints like they are nazis to dare hold society responsible for these practices. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But has 'the Left' really embraced political correctness? If you go past the stereotypical portrayal of cultural marxists against the alt-right, does this really fall into the left/right divide?

In this context, "compromise" is largely red-herring because the issues at stake or moral. There is no way to negotiate, for example, over whether whether white people are better than everyone else and we take any one else not to properly belong. The issues of divsion are so devisive because they ones involving a critical moral responsibility. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Truly a red herring as those being critical of PC usually don't have any ideas like that in mind. It is truly a tiny cabal that march with tiki-torches and yell "Jews will not replace us".

Actually, this shows perfectly the agressive PC attitude (contrary from the polite PC stance). It's starts from the idea that debate is only a power play — ssu

First of all, my attitude is not PC. This actually illustrates what makes so difficult the kind of rational debate you think is the solution. Not everyone who wishes to discuss the problem without automatically condemning PC is PC. Second, I do not think that debate is only a power play. As with all political speech, however, power is an issue. Third, this does not divide along us versus them lines. It has been my recent experience on another philosophy forum that any rational discussion of such things is impossible there because of a group of rabid anti-PC members who are too emotionally involved and convinced of the truth of their caricatures.

Yet the truth is that people on both sides of the political divide are annoyed by the victimhood tactics and crybullying of the agressive PC people. — ssu

I agree. But if one looks beyond the annoyance factor, it is not the PC who are controlling the discourse.

I find the Supreme Court "Citizen's United" ruling most instructive. First, because the citizens in question are a small faction of the ultra-rich. Second, because the Court saw fit to rule that money is speech. Big money, big enough to buy university departments and the new buildings that will house them. With all the noise of PC as a cover, the real control of discourse occurs in places we are not allowed to enter.

The video has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with embarrassing a minor celebrity who has made past racist comments. — Baden

It is both. That it is also how you describe it in the second part of what you say above is not at all that it has nothing to do with political correctness. Are you just using the term "political correctness" in a way which fits your own approval and disapproval?

You disapprove of the prank, so obviously it must have nothing to do with political correctness? The unintelligent ethics which she espouses very much fits the category of politically correct.