And your comment above just adds to my point that here you do have to put into context the present with a historical comparison. — ssu

This is such a Steven Pinker-esque argument. The discussion is around the increase in right wing terrorism, and the charts provided clearly show this to be the case. This is an important societal problem to concern ourselves with, and not something to shrug at simply because there are less overall terrorist attacks compared to 40+ years ago.

Well the plague doesn't exist any more so disease is not really an issue either see.

But honestly, why is anyone talking about right-wing terrorism and not right-wing state power? The growth of the right-wing is not confined to a couple of murderous hicks but to murderous apparatuses of power that are growing all across the West. Has anyone here even noticed the results of the latest EU elections? Probably not because Americans are shit and ignorant. Brasil and Balsonaro? Turkey and Edrogan? India and Modi? Had everyone missed the enshrinement of conservative agenda into law all across the States itself? Right-wing terrorism? Try the terrorism rainined down upon immigrant families trapped in dog cages at the border, sanctioned by nothing less than government power. Try the terrorism enacted upon women's bodies by old White men in the South. Try the terrorism visited upon the poor by the utter destruction of social mobility via officially sanctioned legislation all across the world.

Should one be so lucky as to only have to deal with random and sporadic outbursts of violence and not the massive, suffocating power of the state.

Nothing convoluted about trying to avoid racist and sexist language — Izat So

It's quite convoluted, because you're 'avoiding' the problem, rather than going through it.

Several researchers in the field would disagree with you. — Izat So

That's fine. I maintain that the brain does not need culture to back up its feats, much as AI doesn't.
Culture is just a consequence of the realisation of the brain, rather than a prerequisite.

Well women couldn't vote. They were paid much less than men for the same job. If they married, their husbands became the owners of their property. They spent most of their time working in the home while men spent most of their time in the public sphere. Among the men, the privileged were wealthy landowners, the rich, the well connected, who set the laws, the norms of public behaviour and the stories about what women could and could not achieve given their "frailer" minds and bodies. Ideas deeply rooted in history often take centuries to be transcended, so the narrative is still mostly the old patriarchal one, but with the invention of the pill, factory produced food, labour saving devices in the home with the introduction of electricity - with these technologies - women came to occupy positions in public more and more. Optimistically and I think more realistically, the narrative will resume its progress after this backlash to rather primal patriarchal behaviours or we will just end up in a tribalized nightmare world. This short summary of Obama's recent talk in Ottawa seems pretty dead on vis the last point. — Izat So

Well see, I don't remember it that way.

I remember both boys and girls forcibly laboured for equal pay.
And when those boys and girls became men and women, on the off-chance that they worked the same job at the same place, they earned equal pay, again.

And though women didn't directly vote, forgetting for a moment that there was one political party, they would vote indirectly through their husbands, over which they had a strong influence.

I also don't remember men telling women what they could and couldn't do; I remember strong girls becoming wrestlers and frail girls working the arts, and all girls attending to the household.
The reason as to why women were integral to the household being - they filled it up.
A man would have a lady bring some beauty and order to his home, rather than live brutishly on his own.

Of course, I'm talking of my own personal experience. Maybe yours is different.

Gotta hand it to Peterson for convincing a bunch of knuckle-dragging dipshits that he's a fierce proponent of free-speech when he's now hanging out with Viktor Orban

I maintain that the brain does not need culture to back up its feats, much as AI doesn't.
Culture is just a consequence of the realisation of the brain, rather than a prerequisite.

Be careful. The definition of ‘culture’ is not exactly a science. I would certainly grant that culture necessarily sprouts from social interactions. Such things are driven by the environment - that is NOT to say the basis of this is anything other than neurochemistry though.

In short, the environment plays into the cultural attitudes and humans have an extremely wide capacity for adapting to fit into alien environments, learning new habits and such. We’re extremely cooperative creatures and need to understand more fully the necessity of mistakes and the management of said mistakes. To believe we can do away with mistakes and retain ‘humanity’ is a suicidal attitude imo.

“Race” is common parse is a societal phenomenon and a complete misnomer. Scientifically speaking there is only ONE race of humans. Sadly the ignorance of the past in science has not been fully realised in society and has become so entrenched in political language that historians in the far flung future will likely be looking back and asking how we could’ve been so damn stupid with our use of political language.

“Race” is common parse is a societal phenomenon and a complete misnomer. Scientifically speaking there is only ONE race of humans. — I like sushi

Well sure, there's one contingent of humans, but there's plenty of human breeds, which didn't necessarily originate from the same ancestor.
Neanderthals lived alongside modern man; one could argue they still do.

Either way, I don't see anything unnatural or problematic with there being several races of the human species.

Clearly not scientifically minded then? I suggest you leave blind opinion about brain function to others then my friend ;)

Clearly not scientifically minded then? — I like sushi

Why not? There were different groups of humanoids all wandering the earth; it wasn't one group that spread out. What's the problem with having some of these groups evolve in to the modern breeds?

Are chimpanzees a different species to humans?

Aren't they?

Of course. And from there I can tell you that the two most genetically similar chimps on earth are more genetically dissimilar than the two most genetically dissimilar humans on earth.

Point being there are not subspecies of humans AND there is far more diversity within groups than between them. Meaning some people from Siberia are no different than people from the amazon genetically speaking, scientific speaking and in scientific terms of what “race” is defined as. Phenotypes are just that ... mere surface detail that can appear to appear or disappear within a couple of generations or less (depending on phenotype).

Of course. And from there I can tell you that the two most genetically similar chimps on earth are more genetically dissimilar than the two most genetically dissimilar humans on earth. — I like sushi

Sure, but DNA is still under scrutiny.
Maybe in time, when it's further understood - humans won't seem so similar. Maybe.

Point being there are not subspecies of humans AND there is far more diversity within groups than between them. — I like sushi

I personally disagree on the lack of subspecies.
I feel it should be pretty evident, at least anatomically - that there are.
And something that compels me, is again, the coexistence of neanderthals with many varied mutations of the Homo genus, one being Sapiens.

Meaning some people from Siberia are no different than people from the amazon genetically speaking, scientific speaking and in scientific terms of what “race” is defined as. — I like sushi

I'd disagree that they're not different; they're clearly different.
Yes, they're alike - but they're not identical, clearly.
So even if their makeup is the same, like say that of liquid water and ice, they're different - like liquid water and ice.
So even if they may share the same genetics, those genetics may be re-arranged every which way - to create a subspecies, that are strikingly similar.

:cool:

The growth of the right-wing is not confined to a couple of murderous hicks but to murderous apparatuses of power that are growing all across the West. — StreetlightX

Yes, you are right, sadly. Bannon, Trump's former right hand man, is behind a lot of it. Koch brothers as well. But I am sure there are also many others globally. The plutocracy of the rentier class ... and the chest-beating chumps who support them like lemmings, politically and financially.

I'd disagree

No one with half a brain should care whether you agree or not. The scientific consensus isn’t even a ‘consensus’, it’s and plain and simply fact of how “species” and “race” is defined in the sciences.

You can of course simply refuse to take my word for it or you can ask anyone who knows the basics of zoology and genetics whether I’m talking rubbish or not.

No one with half a brain should care whether you agree or not. — I like sushi

No one without one or a full one either, but that's irrelevant.

The scientific consensus isn’t even a ‘consensus’, it’s and plain and simply fact of how “species” and “race” is defined in the sciences. — I like sushi

It's not a fact, it's the most recent assertion.
The fact about who discovered America changed several times, so like the above, it's not a set in stone fact, but I reiterate - the most recent assertion.

Mind you, there's several scientific interpretations of species and race.

You can of course simply refuse to take my word for it or you can ask anyone who knows the basics of zoology and genetics whether I’m talking rubbish or not. — I like sushi

It's not about whether you're talking rubbish, but whether it sounds convincing and to me it doesn't.
When I've asked geneticists if humans evolved naturally, most conceded that they probably didn't and were artificially mutated - which, and this is my assumption, leads to many human variations, some of which have survived to shape the modern day races.

Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but the alternative seems counterintuitive to me.

I’m not here to convince you of anything. I’ve provided rope to help you up the cliff and you’ve decided to hang yourself ... so be it.

Bye

This is such a Steven Pinker-esque argument. — Maw

Nice. So what's your problem with that?

The discussion is around the increase in right wing terrorism, and the charts provided clearly show this to be the case. — Maw

So why then the ferocious attempt to link terrorism and political correctness? What's the link?

Let's rewind Izat So's basic argument:

It seems to me that those concerned with the potential negative effects of Political Correctness to the extreme, such as Jordan Peterson and various pundits, are responding to the effects of something, not the causes. That area of their concern doesn't really extend too far beyond academia. These pundits ought to be far, far more concerned with a rise in rightwing extremism, and their unwitting contributions toward it in the broader public. — Izat So

I do think people should talk about PC issues because I think that there are some problems with PC extremism. What I don't get is why pundits seem so much more concerned about the relatively piddling cases of political correctness gone bad than the rise of the right with its potentially deadly xenophobia and misogyny. — Izat So

So the basic argument is that the topic is somehow wrong, because ...there's right-wing terrorism.

Well, it's like make the argument that why people are talking about terrorism because global warming, climate change is a far more important topic effecting absolutely everyone.

Nice. So what's your problem with that? — ssu

Pinker's modus operandi is take a typically a downward long term trend, and presenting the current state of this trend as acceptable, or that solutions to these problems would be a mistake etc. In this example, a downward trend of terrorist attacks from the 70's to the present is used as an argument to downplay the increase of right wing terrorism (despite, as I've shown deaths have remained fairly consistent)

So why then the ferocious attempt to link terrorism and political correctness? What's the link? So the basic argument is that the topic is somehow wrong, because ...there's right-wing terrorism. — ssu

Well I'm not making Izat So's argument, I'm saying that the context offered in the graph you provided is irrelevant to the concern of rising right wing terrorism. But to Izat's point, the concern over political correctness is largely overblown as I've shown multiple times in a handful of threads.

So why then the ferocious attempt to link terrorism and political correctness? What's the link? — ssu

You might be confusing me or Maw with I like sushi here.

So the basic argument is that the topic is somehow wrong, because ...there's right-wing terrorism. — ssu

No. For the third or fourth time, here is the position:

Critics of extreme PC do have a point, but what I am concerned about is that they
also seem to be rejecting PC at large and
in doing so are inadvertently feeding into the deeply regressive political movements
in evidence throughout the world
(e.g., Farage, LePen, Hungarian leadership, Brazilian leadership, Trump, new xenophobic legislation in Quebec, etc.),
which ought to be much more of a concern to them
since it is far more deadly. — Izat So

And here is how it has been addressed by critics.

Critics of extreme PC do have a point - No one disagrees, as far as I can tell.

Critics of extreme PC seems to be rejecting PC at large and in so doing are INADVERTENTLY feeding into deeply regressive political movements - MAW's cartoon and my posting of JP with Proud Boys and Pepe, the mascot of the alt right, and the proud islamophobe provide evidence, regardless of how JP et al might feel about them. The point is JP has APPEAL to those groups, whether or not that is his intention (but if he has any sense at all, there is no way he should be surprised).
Farage, LePen, Hungarian leadership, Brazilian leadership, Trump, new xenophobic legislation in Quebec, etc. ought to be much more of a concern to public intellectuals than threats to free speech on the part of PC defenders since it is far more deadly, so the question is why are they far more motivated to attack PC and thus to inadvertently appear to be defenders of the right wing, as opposed to taking a stand against rightwing extremism because it (not PC) is becoming horribly normalized the world over!

But to Izat's point, the concern over political correctness is largely overblown — Maw

By far.

Pinker's modus operandi is take a typically a downward long term trend, and presenting the current state of this trend as acceptable, or that solutions to these problems would be a mistake etc. In this example, a downward trend of terrorist attacks from the 70's to the present is used as an argument to downplay the increase of right wing terrorism (despite, as I've shown deaths have remained fairly consistent) — Maw

There's something else going on here as well. For lack of words is a misunderstanding of nuance in favour of a pedantic reductionism. (Both in SP and in various comments to this thread esp. TS who I suspect might actually know better and is small p politically driven.) But if we have to get scientific, I'd say SP had forgotten Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" and I'm pretty sure the coming punctuations are going to hurt badly.

But to Izat's point, the concern over political correctness is largely overblown
— Maw

By far. — Izat So

I don't think that's true in the USA. Today the administration announced that all visa applications, including those simply for tourism, will have to include all the applicant's social media accounts for the prior five years.

Meanwhile the US Navy is hanging a tarp over the name of one of its destroyers because the President does not like John McCain.

It's difficult to say concerns about PC are overblown any more.

Ugh. It's the opposite. Concerns about PC have been leveraged by the far right IF those digesting social media accounts do so in McCarthyist spirit. So my ernest friend, you've missed the point by a mile or two.

It's the opposite. Concerns about PC have been leveraged by the far right IF those digesting social media accounts do so in McCarthyist spirit. So my ernest friend, you've missed the point by a mile or two. — Izat So

Well that depends on from where you are looking at the problem. Maybe from your view PC is overblown by the far right. But for people outside the USA looking in, it's the other way around. Can you imagine there are now 14 million people applying for tourist visas in the next year who have to go over their social media accounts and delete anything that might jeopardize their application? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a visa to the USA already? It's rejected for any reason without appeal or even explanation in most cases.

I don't think that's true in the USA. Today the administration announced that all visa applications, including those simply for tourism, will have to include all the applicant's social media accounts for the prior five years. It's difficult to say concerns about PC are overblown any more. — ernestm

Two days ago an op-ed article in the NY Post argued that a "cesspool" of political correctness and "identity politics" have taken over US colleges and universities across the US, and that the only viable solution may be to get rid of universities altogether. Now in America, this will largely be laughed at because it's ludicrous on multiple levels, but if you look at what Bolsonaro is doing in Brazil or what Viktor Orban is doing in Hungary, you can see that the stage is being set to defund key university departments that are not "politically correct" for right-wingers, such as sociology, gender studies, philosophy, and other departments that act as an intellectual bulwark against the far-right.

So while concerns about left-wing political correctness are certainly overblown, right wing censorship certainly is not.

So while concerns about left-wing political correctness are certainly overblown, right wing censorship certainly is not. — Maw

Mostly I'd agree, but one does have the the left wing trying to censor Fox. Last week Tucker Carlson called for war on Mexico, ok maybe this is new to most people, but Trump did say he'd support it in 2015, which most people wrote off as a joke. So now the left again wants Carlson fired. War with Mexico may appear lunacy to the more educated, but one can't stop them talking about it either.

I mean Tucker Carlson is an outright white nationalist so yeah he should be fired.

That would be provocation.

Once they start circling the wagons, the worst thing to do is gallop around them shouting war whoops.

I think we have a different interpretation of “concerns about PC” . They’re overblown because there are far more pressing issues than PC threats to free speech. You are referring to concerns about representing PC views?

Ah, I think you almost have it there, but it's retaliation against non-PC views which is my concern.

sure and what inspires that in your view?