Hitler was a SJW.
Feminism and why it's bad.
- Thread starter Beaushizzle
- Start date
NSJW.
National Social Justice Warrior.
If you try to be funny, be at least historical accurately funny!
National Social Justice Warrior.
If you try to be funny, be at least historical accurately funny!
Oh, those slurs we have today, such as socialist, feminist, social justice warrior, and politically correct! Man, what a bunch of losers who are all those things!
Almost as bad as sharing or being considerate
Hahahaaa, I'd like to meet someone considerate so I could show them what's what! In the most inconsiderate manner possible!
Or nice, man, what an asshole someone's got to be, to be nice
Almost as bad as sharing or being considerate
Hahahaaa, I'd like to meet someone considerate so I could show them what's what! In the most inconsiderate manner possible!
Or nice, man, what an asshole someone's got to be, to be nice
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
I guess I'll post this here:
http://deadline.com/2015/11/zoe-quinn-crash-override-gamergate-memoir-amy-pascal-1201611420/
Have we shifted to a bizarro reality all of a sudden?
I agree with this:
"Why would anyone want to watch a movie about this
Even SVU had to make absurd exaggerations to fill up less than an hour."
http://deadline.com/2015/11/zoe-quinn-crash-override-gamergate-memoir-amy-pascal-1201611420/
Have we shifted to a bizarro reality all of a sudden?
I agree with this:
"Why would anyone want to watch a movie about this
Even SVU had to make absurd exaggerations to fill up less than an hour."
PossibleCabbage
Vault 22 Survivor
I'm really happy for Zoe Quinn, she's one of my favorite people in games.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
A memoir at 28? What the fuck?
She got to speak at the UN?
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
There doesn't need to be a 1984-ish system for there to be a problem at all.
https://www.thefire.org/yale-students-demand-resignations-from-faculty-members-over-halloween-email/
https://www.thefire.org/yale-students-demand-resignations-from-faculty-members-over-halloween-email/
Yale Students Demand Resignations from Faculty Members Over Halloween EmailBy Haley Hudler November 6, 2015
Tensions at Yale University hit a boiling point yesterday after an email about Halloween costumes created a week-long controversy on campus.
Students called for the resignation of Associate Master of Silliman College Erika Christakis after she responded to an email from the school’s Intercultural Affairs Council asking students to be thoughtful about the cultural implications of their Halloween costumes. According to The Washington Post, students are also calling for the resignation of her husband, Master of Silliman College, Nicholas Christakis, who defended her statement.
FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff recorded video of students confronting Nicholas Christakis yesterday in the courtyard of the Silliman College dormitory complex at Yale. Lukianoff was on Yale’s campus to speak at a conference on issues related to free speech in higher education.
As FIRE’s Alex Morey wrote just last week, we see campus controversies over Halloween costumes every year. But these developments at Yale show just how intense those controversies have become.
Yale students have every right to express their anger and frustration with Yale faculty. But FIRE is concerned by yet another unfortunate example of students who demand upsetting opinions be entirely eradicated from the university in the name of fostering “safe spaces” where students are protected from hurt feelings. Practicing free speech does not merely entail the right to protest opinions you object to—it also means acknowledging people’s right to hold those opinions in the first place.
Recall that Yale is the source of one of the most glowing statements in support of free expression in higher education. The statement, based on the university’s 1975 Woodward Report, demonstrates the need to be free to “think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.” It even goes so far as to inform Yale students that “when you agree to matriculate, you join a community where ‘the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox’ must be tolerated. When you encounter people who think differently than you do, you will be expected to honor their free expression, even when what they have to say seems wrong or offensive to you.”
The Intercultural Affairs Committee’s Halloween Email
On Wednesday, October 28, Yale Dean Burgwell Howard sent an email to Yale’s entire undergraduate student body from the university’s Intercultural Affairs Committee, a 13-member group of administrators from the Chaplain’s Office, campus cultural centers, and other campus organizations. The email, titled “Halloween and the Yale Community,” implored students to be thoughtful about the cultural implications of their Halloween costumes and how they might offend or degrade others, pointing to costumes such as feathered headdresses, turbans, “war paint,” and blackface as examples of inappropriate “cultural appropriation and/or misrepresentation.” Howard sent a similar email to the Northwestern University community in 2010 when he was the dean of students there.
While the committee’s email acknowledged that students “definitely have a right to express themselves,” the committee hoped they would “actively avoid those circumstances that threaten our sense of community or disrespects, alienates or ridicules segments of our population based on race, nationality, religious belief or gender expression.”
The committee then provided a list of questions students should ask themselves before deciding upon a costume, as well as links to websites educating students about common racial stereotypes. The committee even linked to several Pinterest boards curated by Yale’s Community & Consent Educators—one with a collection of acceptable, school-sanctioned costume ideas and the other with a collection of “costumes to avoid.”
Erika Christakis’ Response
Just after midnight on Friday, October 30, Erika Christakis sent an email to the Silliman community in response to the Intercultural Affairs Committee’s Halloween email. Christakis explained that she and her husband Nicholas had heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the committee’s email. Although the email was allegedly supposed to serve as a recommendation rather than a formal policy, to some, its length, tone, content, and the list of 13 signatories seemed to indicate otherwise.
Christakis drew on her experiences as a child development specialist to question whether a university should dictate what students should and shouldn’t wear on Halloween:
The response to Christakis’ email was explosive. More than 740 Yale undergraduates, graduate students, alumni, faculty, and even students from other universities signed on to an open letter telling Christakis that her “offensive” email invalidates the voices of minority students on campus.
Christakis and her husband have since invited all Silliman signatories of the open letter, as well as any other Silliman students who might disagree with her email, to a lunch this Sunday. The invitation was sharply rejected by some, including one student who, in a Yale Herald piece published today, criticized the invitation and argued that Nicholas Christakis “needs to stop instigating more debate.”
On Wednesday, more than 350 Yale undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty gathered in the Afro-American Cultural Center to attend an open forumon allegations of institutional racism on campus. The forum, which lasted more than two hours, addressed the daily experiences of Yale’s minority students and centered around two controversies: Christakis’ email, and allegations that members of Yale’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity had turned away black womenfrom a fraternity party on Friday night.
The next day, shortly after a three-hour-long impromptu confrontation on Cross Campus with Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway about the lack of administrative response to the week’s events, around 100 students gathered in the courtyard of Silliman College to protest Christakis’ email. Nicholas Christakis, who decided to meet with the student protesters, was soon encircled and accused of racism and insensitivity, with many demanding an apology for his wife’s email.
Christakis engaged with the students and listened to their concerns for several hours. Finally, Christakis told the crowd, “I apologize for causing pain, but I am not sorry for the statement. I stand behind free speech. I defend the right for people to speak their minds.”
This was not the “apology” the students were demanding. As you can see from the footage below, which was taken by Lukianoff while on campus, the confrontation quickly escalated into a shouting match.
We encourage you to watch the footage in full, along with the other videos taken by Lukianoff while observing the protests.
In the above video, a student demands an apology for Christakis’ e-mail, saying she feels like Yale was no longer a “safe space” for her and other students, especially incoming freshmen.
“t’s not a home. It is no longer a safe space for me. And I find that incredibly depressing,” she says. “This was once a space that I was proud to be a part of because of the loving community.”
According to the Yale Daily News, nearly half of the students left when they realized Christakis was not going to give them what they considered an “appropriate” apology.
One student pressed Christakis on whether he was going to give an apology.
“So, my question is: are you going to say that? Or not?” she asked. “Cause then, I could just leave if you’re not gonna say that.”
In another video, below, a student in the crowd tells other students to just “walk away” because “He [Christakis] doesn’t deserve to be listened to.”
One of the stronger accusations the students make is that Christakis’ refusal to apologize for his wife’s email makes him unfit to be master of Silliman.
“As your position as master, it is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students that live in Silliman,” one student says. “You have not done that. By sending out that email, that goes against your position as master. Do you understand that?”
When Christakis disagreed, the student proceeded to yell at him.
“Who the fuck hired you?” she asked, arguing that Christakis should “step down” because being master is “not about creating an intellectual space,” but rather “creating a home.”
This student is not alone. Many other students are going so far as to demand that Christakis and his wife resign from their roles as master and associate master. According to the Washington Post, students were drafting a formal letterThursday evening, calling for the removal of Christakis and her husband from their roles in Silliman.
At the gathering with Dean Holloway earlier that day, Silliman students expressed similar concerns and voiced their unwillingness to receive their diplomas from Christakis at graduation.
The Implications for Freedom of Expression and the Marketplace of Ideas
Are the students’ protests against the Christakises protected speech? Of course.
But the students’ demand that the Christakises lose their jobs for their dissident opinions represents another strong example of the phenomenon Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt talked about in their September cover story for The Atlantic, “The Coddling of the American Mind.” In their article, Lukianoff and Haidt argue that students are increasingly engaging in a culture of “vindictive protectiveness” that seeks to control campus speech in a way that not only limits free expression and chills candor, but that can also promote distorted ways of thinking.
This morning, Dean Holloway wrote an email to all Yale students addressing the week’s controversies. In that email, he wrote that he “will enforce the community standards that safeguard you as members of this community.”
Among those standards FIRE hopes Dean Holloway will enforce is the university’s standard for freedom of expression, which demands that when student and faculty members “encounter people who think differently than you do, you will be expected to honor their free expression, even when what they have to say seems wrong or offensive to you.”
As always, the best response to speech one disagrees with is more speech, not censorship.
FIRE will continue to monitor the situation as it unfolds.
Schools: Yale UniversityCases: Protesters at Yale Threaten Free Speech, Demand Apologies and Resignations from Faculty Members Over Halloween Email
Tensions at Yale University hit a boiling point yesterday after an email about Halloween costumes created a week-long controversy on campus.
Students called for the resignation of Associate Master of Silliman College Erika Christakis after she responded to an email from the school’s Intercultural Affairs Council asking students to be thoughtful about the cultural implications of their Halloween costumes. According to The Washington Post, students are also calling for the resignation of her husband, Master of Silliman College, Nicholas Christakis, who defended her statement.
FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff recorded video of students confronting Nicholas Christakis yesterday in the courtyard of the Silliman College dormitory complex at Yale. Lukianoff was on Yale’s campus to speak at a conference on issues related to free speech in higher education.
As FIRE’s Alex Morey wrote just last week, we see campus controversies over Halloween costumes every year. But these developments at Yale show just how intense those controversies have become.
Yale students have every right to express their anger and frustration with Yale faculty. But FIRE is concerned by yet another unfortunate example of students who demand upsetting opinions be entirely eradicated from the university in the name of fostering “safe spaces” where students are protected from hurt feelings. Practicing free speech does not merely entail the right to protest opinions you object to—it also means acknowledging people’s right to hold those opinions in the first place.
Recall that Yale is the source of one of the most glowing statements in support of free expression in higher education. The statement, based on the university’s 1975 Woodward Report, demonstrates the need to be free to “think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.” It even goes so far as to inform Yale students that “when you agree to matriculate, you join a community where ‘the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox’ must be tolerated. When you encounter people who think differently than you do, you will be expected to honor their free expression, even when what they have to say seems wrong or offensive to you.”
The Intercultural Affairs Committee’s Halloween Email
On Wednesday, October 28, Yale Dean Burgwell Howard sent an email to Yale’s entire undergraduate student body from the university’s Intercultural Affairs Committee, a 13-member group of administrators from the Chaplain’s Office, campus cultural centers, and other campus organizations. The email, titled “Halloween and the Yale Community,” implored students to be thoughtful about the cultural implications of their Halloween costumes and how they might offend or degrade others, pointing to costumes such as feathered headdresses, turbans, “war paint,” and blackface as examples of inappropriate “cultural appropriation and/or misrepresentation.” Howard sent a similar email to the Northwestern University community in 2010 when he was the dean of students there.
While the committee’s email acknowledged that students “definitely have a right to express themselves,” the committee hoped they would “actively avoid those circumstances that threaten our sense of community or disrespects, alienates or ridicules segments of our population based on race, nationality, religious belief or gender expression.”
The committee then provided a list of questions students should ask themselves before deciding upon a costume, as well as links to websites educating students about common racial stereotypes. The committee even linked to several Pinterest boards curated by Yale’s Community & Consent Educators—one with a collection of acceptable, school-sanctioned costume ideas and the other with a collection of “costumes to avoid.”
Erika Christakis’ Response
Just after midnight on Friday, October 30, Erika Christakis sent an email to the Silliman community in response to the Intercultural Affairs Committee’s Halloween email. Christakis explained that she and her husband Nicholas had heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the committee’s email. Although the email was allegedly supposed to serve as a recommendation rather than a formal policy, to some, its length, tone, content, and the list of 13 signatories seemed to indicate otherwise.
Christakis drew on her experiences as a child development specialist to question whether a university should dictate what students should and shouldn’t wear on Halloween:
I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.
In addition to expressing concerns about how policing students’ costumes can limit the exercise of imagination, free speech, and free expression, Christakis asked:
Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.
The Aftermath
The response to Christakis’ email was explosive. More than 740 Yale undergraduates, graduate students, alumni, faculty, and even students from other universities signed on to an open letter telling Christakis that her “offensive” email invalidates the voices of minority students on campus.
Christakis and her husband have since invited all Silliman signatories of the open letter, as well as any other Silliman students who might disagree with her email, to a lunch this Sunday. The invitation was sharply rejected by some, including one student who, in a Yale Herald piece published today, criticized the invitation and argued that Nicholas Christakis “needs to stop instigating more debate.”
On Wednesday, more than 350 Yale undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty gathered in the Afro-American Cultural Center to attend an open forumon allegations of institutional racism on campus. The forum, which lasted more than two hours, addressed the daily experiences of Yale’s minority students and centered around two controversies: Christakis’ email, and allegations that members of Yale’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity had turned away black womenfrom a fraternity party on Friday night.
The next day, shortly after a three-hour-long impromptu confrontation on Cross Campus with Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway about the lack of administrative response to the week’s events, around 100 students gathered in the courtyard of Silliman College to protest Christakis’ email. Nicholas Christakis, who decided to meet with the student protesters, was soon encircled and accused of racism and insensitivity, with many demanding an apology for his wife’s email.
Christakis engaged with the students and listened to their concerns for several hours. Finally, Christakis told the crowd, “I apologize for causing pain, but I am not sorry for the statement. I stand behind free speech. I defend the right for people to speak their minds.”
This was not the “apology” the students were demanding. As you can see from the footage below, which was taken by Lukianoff while on campus, the confrontation quickly escalated into a shouting match.
We encourage you to watch the footage in full, along with the other videos taken by Lukianoff while observing the protests.
In the above video, a student demands an apology for Christakis’ e-mail, saying she feels like Yale was no longer a “safe space” for her and other students, especially incoming freshmen.
“t’s not a home. It is no longer a safe space for me. And I find that incredibly depressing,” she says. “This was once a space that I was proud to be a part of because of the loving community.”
According to the Yale Daily News, nearly half of the students left when they realized Christakis was not going to give them what they considered an “appropriate” apology.
One student pressed Christakis on whether he was going to give an apology.
“So, my question is: are you going to say that? Or not?” she asked. “Cause then, I could just leave if you’re not gonna say that.”
In another video, below, a student in the crowd tells other students to just “walk away” because “He [Christakis] doesn’t deserve to be listened to.”
One of the stronger accusations the students make is that Christakis’ refusal to apologize for his wife’s email makes him unfit to be master of Silliman.
“As your position as master, it is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students that live in Silliman,” one student says. “You have not done that. By sending out that email, that goes against your position as master. Do you understand that?”
When Christakis disagreed, the student proceeded to yell at him.
“Who the fuck hired you?” she asked, arguing that Christakis should “step down” because being master is “not about creating an intellectual space,” but rather “creating a home.”
This student is not alone. Many other students are going so far as to demand that Christakis and his wife resign from their roles as master and associate master. According to the Washington Post, students were drafting a formal letterThursday evening, calling for the removal of Christakis and her husband from their roles in Silliman.
At the gathering with Dean Holloway earlier that day, Silliman students expressed similar concerns and voiced their unwillingness to receive their diplomas from Christakis at graduation.
The Implications for Freedom of Expression and the Marketplace of Ideas
Are the students’ protests against the Christakises protected speech? Of course.
But the students’ demand that the Christakises lose their jobs for their dissident opinions represents another strong example of the phenomenon Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt talked about in their September cover story for The Atlantic, “The Coddling of the American Mind.” In their article, Lukianoff and Haidt argue that students are increasingly engaging in a culture of “vindictive protectiveness” that seeks to control campus speech in a way that not only limits free expression and chills candor, but that can also promote distorted ways of thinking.
This morning, Dean Holloway wrote an email to all Yale students addressing the week’s controversies. In that email, he wrote that he “will enforce the community standards that safeguard you as members of this community.”
Among those standards FIRE hopes Dean Holloway will enforce is the university’s standard for freedom of expression, which demands that when student and faculty members “encounter people who think differently than you do, you will be expected to honor their free expression, even when what they have to say seems wrong or offensive to you.”
As always, the best response to speech one disagrees with is more speech, not censorship.
FIRE will continue to monitor the situation as it unfolds.
Schools: Yale UniversityCases: Protesters at Yale Threaten Free Speech, Demand Apologies and Resignations from Faculty Members Over Halloween Email
Last edited:
Moosick
cats
tbh just looking at that original email that was mass-sent to Yale students and the response it received, the row seems to be more the result of unapologetic racists, socially blind ultra-libertarians and culturally-authoritarian leftists all strawmanning at each other; the origin point of the contention being someone seeing the email to be a restriction of free speech and the more authoritarian leftists getting, as they usually do, in a tizz over that. How does one get to being so culturally and historically blind that you read an email saying "please think about whether it might be better to /not/ dress up in redface or as a suicide bomber" as being a form of collectivist infringement upon freedom of speech?
I find it very interesting that the authority email only actually says that they would encourage one to /consider/ how their dress might be interpreted, rather than asserting that there will be discipline for something that does not meet an arbitrary threshold. And the email reply is, though very well-written and thoughtful - hardly incendiary - a little presumptive and kind of saying "well, I don't want to have to think about this stuff and dislike the disputes involved; here's a short blurb on why a faculty shouldn't establish strict dress codes on cultural events" - ironic considering that it did no such a thing - as well as using an extremely tame example of a wide-eyed, curious child who watched Mulan and now idolises her as a contradistinction to somebody painting their face with boot polish.
Signatories may simply mean they considered /how/ it was written in a larger group - hardly a bad decision so long as those introduced to such considerations are not brought in due to personal and highly political biases (likely to be the case here, though).
I try not to be cynical (in the classical sense) most of the time but it's really hard not to view most people as really quite pathetic when they bicker like this.
I find it very interesting that the authority email only actually says that they would encourage one to /consider/ how their dress might be interpreted, rather than asserting that there will be discipline for something that does not meet an arbitrary threshold. And the email reply is, though very well-written and thoughtful - hardly incendiary - a little presumptive and kind of saying "well, I don't want to have to think about this stuff and dislike the disputes involved; here's a short blurb on why a faculty shouldn't establish strict dress codes on cultural events" - ironic considering that it did no such a thing - as well as using an extremely tame example of a wide-eyed, curious child who watched Mulan and now idolises her as a contradistinction to somebody painting their face with boot polish.
I find this extremely questionable. How does it's length matter? It's less than a page of text, with plenty of line breaks. Are students that dense nowadays? The tone is highly formal and quite tippy-toey, really... The content is inherent to the subject at hand and kind of a moot point - the most objectionable thing I can see in there is that some might find it to be hypersensitive, or perhaps find the overly formal and plain speech to be tip-toeing or indeed tired and uninspired.
Signatories may simply mean they considered /how/ it was written in a larger group - hardly a bad decision so long as those introduced to such considerations are not brought in due to personal and highly political biases (likely to be the case here, though).
I try not to be cynical (in the classical sense) most of the time but it's really hard not to view most people as really quite pathetic when they bicker like this.
Last edited:
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
Go to a college dressed in a "insensitive" costume and tell me again one is just 'suggested' to tow the line.
Moosick
cats
You'd be surprised what you can get away with over here.
In a way those "suggestions" are really like Nineteen Eighty-Four: In Oceania there are technically no laws, but Thoughtcrime is of course still deadly to the perpetrator.
Moosick
cats
Eh, I read that particular mass email to be extremely "tip-toey" around the issue, some might argue a little passive aggressive. How the faculty + others use it is where real problems may arise - the actual content is little more than "h-hey guys, can you like, not p-please dress up like a Red Indian pls because, like, ~*~friendship~*~". The people are all pushing their own quite aggressive agendas onto it and having a shitfit over something originally intended to try and ease some of the awful shite some fraternities occasionally get reported for doing and ironically try and avoid what's going on now. It's a strawmanner's nightmare.
Because really, those "suggestions" are asking the person to think a little about the contextual significant of their costume. It doesn't actually say whether they should care or not (and a lot of people don't much), and one needs more information about Yale's faculty to know if there is an "...or else" tagged on there. As it is I find the letter to be oddly passive in this regard.
IDK how things are in the US/Germany/wherever else you folks are from, but in the UK I've seen people dress up as far worse than the typical headdresses and such and get little object for it. The more egregious ones usually get a reeeally hushed conversation from the person in charge at most, and the last time that happened it was a dude dressed up as a suicide bomber, their clothes religiously significant pieces covered in fake blood, and it was more "dude, you're uninformed" than "LEAVE OR BE SMOTED". Perhaps it depends on the city/town, too.
IDK, I'm probably wrong.
Because really, those "suggestions" are asking the person to think a little about the contextual significant of their costume. It doesn't actually say whether they should care or not (and a lot of people don't much), and one needs more information about Yale's faculty to know if there is an "...or else" tagged on there. As it is I find the letter to be oddly passive in this regard.
IDK how things are in the US/Germany/wherever else you folks are from, but in the UK I've seen people dress up as far worse than the typical headdresses and such and get little object for it. The more egregious ones usually get a reeeally hushed conversation from the person in charge at most, and the last time that happened it was a dude dressed up as a suicide bomber, their clothes religiously significant pieces covered in fake blood, and it was more "dude, you're uninformed" than "LEAVE OR BE SMOTED". Perhaps it depends on the city/town, too.
IDK, I'm probably wrong.
Last edited:
Battlecross
Banned
Nas92
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I somewhat understand these culturally authoritarian leftists. Sure, many of them are privileged white kids on a power trip, having found an ideology that not only tolerates, but encourages being a whiny, pathetic brat (cause safe spaces and herp derp toxic masculinity) but I detect that many of them are trying to fight the cancer of the frats and sororities. (I'm guessing all the frat types make it a point to dress up in black face and the occasional sombrero.) I've seen these greek community types in action before, mostly on YouTube videos and forums, and I can't imagine studying in the vicinity of such pieces of human trash. Ffs, they even make fun of non-frat students as God damn independents or something. Yeah, they actually say that if you're not a sheep who follows them, then you're trash. They're also open about how people many times get hired based solely on the fact that they were in xy frat / sorority. Yeah. Cause nepotism and cronyism is like kewl brah. Ironically, I also get the feeling that many of them are Republicons crying about free stuff, and swearing that the US is a meritocracy.
Moosick
cats
I can sympathise with ideas of not being an asshole, having cultural + historical awareness, just generally not using people oppressed for centuries as puppets in a game of Look How Edgy I Can Be, and other things I won't go into for the sake of brevity. I'm with leftism up until it becomes socially authoritarian by means of collective aggression toward an individual with an opposing opinion (a very tentative phrase, considering how defensive people get against a group opposition), though I would argue that this is an issue in ANY society, and that to reduce it to being a matter of "PC" without a thorough historical understanding of that term and an extremely strong argument is the absolute height of ignorance.
I don't understand understanding of anything but very soft authoritarianism at all, but I'm biased and very stupid, so
I don't understand understanding of anything but very soft authoritarianism at all, but I'm biased and very stupid, so
Will the moral panic never stop? Oh noooooo, people are critical of your actions, this is "deadly to the perpetrator."
People being critical of insensitive bullshit is not oppression. It is doubly ironic because the insensitive bullshit is often part of a discourse that justifies actual, daily discrimination and oppression. The fact that folks in this thread are largely more upset at the people critiquing insensitive bullshit than the actually insensitive bullshit is telling.
Or: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/11/its-time-to-retire-the-pc-police.html
That wasn't my point. My point was just that the whole "it's not a law, it's just suggestions" really is like how Oceania worked. Nothing else. Being critical of insensitive things is fine, and I do think the whole issue got blown out of proportion.
1984 had an actual Thought Police. But that's beside the point: yes, culture enforces cultural norms. This is how any culture works, and the only way a culture can work. What you're complaining about is people reacting against the existing cultural norms and enforcing their own. The point is not to go "cultural norms are bad stop enforcing them" because that way lies only the reinforcement of the status quo's cultural norms, not an actual non-enforcement of cultural norms. That would be impossible.
But hey, look at what happens every time this shit gets some publicity: people rush to condemn the people being critical and folks are complaining about "authoritarian" leftists (apparently you don't need to have any actual authority or enforcement capabilities to be authoritarian now). The constant moral panic is completely unjustified, given that there's an obvious and widespread support network for the people perpetrating insensitive bullshit.
But they had no laws, technically. No courts, no laws, no legislative, just the rules of the Party. It is explicitly said that there are no laws anymore.