>>7565437 yet another middle aged white dude complaining about muh political corectness gone madd and shit. It means he's afraid of a time where he will no longer able to shit on the rest of society like he's used too. Zizek is much like the archetypal brocialist redditor plus loads of meaningless lacanian jargon.
It means he wants a white Europe with no muslim immigrants but can't say it.
Most people who are left wing and come up with these philosophical excuses for opposing politically correctness really just don't want immigrants and don't want to deal with feminist bullshit, that simple, but they can't say it so contrive better sounding reasons.
>>7565437 The issue with political correctness is that it creates a barrier of formality between groups, and counter intuitively drives them apart. His example with the black people allowing him to say "nigga" is perfect; when another race hangs out with a group of blacks, they are implicitly forbidden from using "nigga." Not only is there an awkward, unspoken understanding of this limitation, but the word "nigga" operates the same way "dude" does for white guys: its an expression whose meaning is decided by voice inflection and gestures.
In general, suffering and bad shit is far more intimate than stiff politeness, and all the rules of political correctness puts people on edge and prevents them from being authentic.
>>7566108 Calling someone a dick is such an empty and moralistic criticism, but it does expose the leftist position. "My politics are the anti-establishment, yet I am the arbiter of morality," sounds silly, but that is where they stand.
>>7566556 I've yet to hear any convincing argument why 'political correctness' might be a bad thing. I think it's not even a thing, it's just a growing consideration for the feelings of other people and cultures. But some people (mostly white dudes) feel really threatened by that and it's really sad.
>>7567931 I see nothing wrong with that chart. What's wrong with empathy and taking into account the subtle effects our words have on others? The cumulative effect of microagressions has been demonstrated by multiple researchers. individually their impact is negligible, but eventually they contribute to a system which alienates marginalised people and makes them loose pride in their culture and identity.
In a perspicuous short essay on civility, Robert Pippin elaborated the enigmatic in-between-status of this notion which designates all the acts that display the basic subjective attitude of respect for others as free and autonomous agents, equal to us, the benevolent attitude of making the step over the strict utilitarian or "rational" calculation of costs and benefits in relations to others, of trusting them, trying not to humiliate them, etc. Although, measured by the degree of its obligatory character, civility is more than kindness or generosity (one cannot oblige people to be generous), it is distinctly less than a moral or legal obligation. This is what is wrong in Politically Correct attempts to moralize or even directly penalize modes of behaviour which basically pertain to civility (like hurting others with vulgar obscenities of speech, etc.): they potentially undermine the precious "middle ground" of civility. In more Hegelian terms, what gets lost in the penalization of un-civility is "ethical substance" as such: in contrast to laws and explicit normative regulations, civility is by definition "substantial," something experienced as always-already given, never imposed/instituted as such. Pippin is right to link the crucial role of civility in modern societies to the rise of the autonomous free individual - not only in the sense that civility is a practice of treating others as equal, free and autonomous subjects, but in a much more refined way: the fragile web of civility is the "social substance" of free independent individuals, it is their very mode of (inter)dependence. If this substance disintegrates, the space of individual freedom is foreclosed. [...] It is the underlying equation of intellectual critique with physical terrorist attacks which brutally violates the Western European Leitkultur, which insists on the universal sphere of the “public use of reason,” where one can criticize and problematize everything [...]
Civility is crucial here: multicultural freedom also functions only when it is sustained by the rules of civility, which are never abstract, but always embedded in a Leitkultur. [...]Freedom of speech functions when all parties follow the same unwritten rules of civility telling us what kind of attacks are improper, although they are not legally prohibited; civility tells us which features of a specific ethnic or religious “way of life” are acceptable and which are not acceptable. If all sides do not share or respect the same civility, then multiculturalism turns into legally regulated mutual ignorance or hatred.
>>7567967 let's look at one section -- assumption of criminality. i agree it's bad to assume an individual is a criminal based on race. but rather than focusing on the cause of criminal assumption being white racism, what about the fact that blacks for example do, in fact, commit crimes as much higher rates than whites? the result of this is especially unfortunate for the majority of non-criminal blacks.
and the other statement "i believe the most qualified person should get the job" -- well, why not? where is the "justice" in a middle class black getting preferential treatment compared to a poor white, which does happen in cases of college admissions.
and further what is wrong with acculturating? it's good.
>>7568011 >what about the fact that blacks for example do, in fact, commit crimes as much higher rates than whites?
And why might that be? Can it have anything to do with the fact that black people have been economically and emotionally marginalized for centuries? I think there's a lot that needs fixing, but the first step lies in empowering folks, promoting a sense of radical self-acceptance.
>>7568094 the first and only step is the empower the whole working class so they have dignified, secure and well paying jobs. that should take care of most of it, then we'll have to see if black criminality remains disproportionate. rather than meaningless postmodern race theory mumbo jumbo.
areas of high white poverty don't have the crime and violence problems black areas have, though they do tend to be more sparsely populated. it seems a stretch to me that that should be such a mitigating factor and you see in the results.
>>7567800 Such a company compelling argument. Why are people who are incapable or unwilling to participate in civil society deserving of such consideration? Why should we do such a thing when their participation is harmful to society as a whole? There should be a dichotomy separating people and humans. The former, do to their ability to participate in civil society, should be deserving be deserving of those feelings. The latter should be those of our sspecies that are undeserving.
>>7567733 I'd agree with you if those that promoted such a thing did not constantly misinterpret their feelings and resort to mental gymnastics to make up for it.
If you want a basic introduction to Zizek read the Sublime Object. It's very lucid, especially for cont. philosophy, and he basically holds your hand through all the lacanian stuff. Anyone who pegs Zizek as an obscurantist has probably only seen his ramblings on youtube. And without a grasp of his underlying theory, or of lacan and freud, all of his talks and essays inevitably appear as nonsense.
Anyways, besides his own analysis of political correctness from a lacanian perspective (outlined by the poster above), he mentions in passing another argument here, which used to be quite common among the new left but seems to be lost on millennials when they talk about PC. That argument is basically that political correctness is a form of "self-discipline" which does little to nothing to alleviate the material conditions faced by the oppressed, but provides the politically correct individual with a sense of virtue, assuages their guilt, etc. In this sense it is similar to recycling or so-called ethical consumerism. It is a kind of active participation, perhaps even a ritual, which can be carried out in everyday interactions, and whose main function is to provide a reliable source of contentment for the participant. In this sense it is a sort of false praxis which obscures the subjects view and draws attention away from more meaningful, effective solutions to the problem, essentially making them believe that they've "done their part" and so they can quit worrying about the issue.
I've also heard Zizek mention Wendy Brown's book on tolerance, which is a very interesting read. She traces the genealogy of the multicultural discourse of tolerance back to the church during the reformation, when they decided to stop killing heretics, and show how this religious character informs the discourse of tolerance, in the sense that tolerance is enacted as a sort of religious virtue which provides spiritual consolation for the tolerating individual. At the time she was writing about a left which hadn't fully embraced identity politics, but it does seem that the critique applies just as well to contemporary discussions of race, sex, etc. But what is very interesting about the book is the sense you get of how completely our culture's religious past has informed our apparently secular culture today, even and especially if we so constantly disown it.
>>7568011 blacks are arrested at much higher rates than whites, research shows that race has little to do with actually committing crimes though. crime is much more correlated with age and socioeconomic status. so while numbers seem to indicate that blacks COMMIT more crime, in reality they are simply arrested at higher rates for the crimes they do commit
>>7568094 >but the first step lies in empowering folks, promoting a sense of radical self-acceptance. what is this, some sort of reverse-Marxism? you think you can introduce an ideology and just watch it magically restructure material reality? That's absurd.
black and minorities are suffering in America from actual material conditions. the only people who care about microagressions are the rich, privileged minorities who've never dealt with being poor and living in the ghetto. seriously, take a trip to some inner city school some time and tell me if you still think it's reasonable for some asshole whose dad is paying their $25,000 tuition to complain about people asking where she's from.
material conditions are in many cases the product of racialised power structures, in which microaggressions play an important part. Marxism failed because it ignored culture and personal empowerment, among other crucial aspects of human nature. In the worst of cases such reductionist socialist movements, from the old left leninists to Sen. sanders campaign, amount to identity politics for an (implicitly white) working class.
>>7568326 >material conditions are in many cases the product of racialised power structures,
genuinely not being a dick here, I promise, but have you read much theory about this stuff or did you just post that because it sounded nice and it seems to support your beliefs?
I ask because the phrase "racialized power structures" is pretty much meaningless, used out of context like that. It tells us nothing besides the fact that racist structures exist, which everyone (political theorists, sane social commentators, etc.) agrees up. The relevant question you need to answer is what constitutes that structure.
For example, the traditional, orthodox Marxist would argue that racist power structures are reducible to material conditions, in the form of class antagonisms. More precisely that racial antagonism is displaced class antagonism, like class warfare in the formal guise of race war.
Conversely, a radical feminist would argue that racist power structures are reducible to gender inequality, in the sense that power is always essentially gendered, with the powerful playing the role of masculine, the powerless as feminine, etc., and thus that racial tension is at root tension between genders.
You seem to be of the opinion that racist structures are constituted, at least in significant part, by "culture and personal empowerment" (I take you mean empowerment in the form of identity?). Again, unless you content that racial power structures are reducible to culture and identity, which I don't take it you do, and which would be a rather absurd proposition (as if antisemitism was due to the low cultural self-esteem of Jews, etc.), your statement doesn't really tell us much beyond what is already agreed upon by everyone, what with the orthodox Marxists having passed away, and the radical feminists having become extremely marginal. Everyone today pretty much agrees that matters of culture and identity are "some part" of racist power structures, and spend their time arguing which part that might be, and how it relates to all the other parts. This is the question you need to be asking here.
> Marxism failed because it ignored culture and personal empowerment, among other crucial aspects of human nature. In the worst of cases such reductionist socialist movements, from the old left leninists to Sen. sanders campaign, amount to identity politics for an (implicitly white) working class.
Again, I'm not trying to be a dick, but I have to wonder if you know what these words mean. The Marxism which most obviously didn't ignore culture was Maoism, so the historical argument doesn't get off the ground. But more than that it's extremely sloppy to speculate about how and why a huge, diverse political movement failed, unless you have a very strong historical grasp on the matter. Even historians of the USSR and China don't come close to agreeing on these things, so it's really best not to speculate if you want to be taken seriously.
>>7567733 Political correctness brings a wall between people that in a backwards way prevents them from talking about their cultural backgrounds. Because of the strange assumptions liberal white people bring to the table about other's cultures and the imaginary landmines they try to avoid they end up talking in a stilted way with other races, promoting casual segregation.
Honestly I know so many white people who are so unwilling to just talk shit with a person from a different culture(this IS more a question of culture than race in my opinion) that they lose out on potential friends.
>>7567972 So what then would determine what could be considered as civil and what would be hate-speech? Giving such power to a small group would obviously give them leverage in whatever political or social goals they have. Giving the responsibility to the people means its unlikely in resulting in a clear distinction between the two, as most people aren't qualified to make any political decision
>>7568560 >onestly I know so many white people who are so unwilling to just talk shit with a person from a different culture
This is not for white people.
I could not care less about white people being forced to be slightly awkward around others. This is for the queers and POC who feel unsafe and alienated, this is for people with mental illnesses who suffer from stigma and for the girls and women who feel compelled to starve themselves to death in pursuit of unreachable standards. This too, is for the young black man shot by the cops for daring to go about his daily life.
folks. are. dying. out. there.
Because of these structures put in place hundreds or thousands of years ago, structures perpetuated by subtle stereotypes and seemingly innocent actions. For you ''Political Correctness'' is a nuisance, for many its their first time they are acknowledged as human.
>>7571257 What does not even mean to be "acknowledged as human?" Plenty of those seen as human have been treated poorly throughout time. He's giving a nonexistent social significance to being born with a certain amount of chromosomes, and it doesn't really make sense.
>>7571275 If im being honest, be honest, the use of the word folks got me.
>>7571427 Most criminals in America are white, but a higher *percentage* of blacks are criminals than whites. Whites still commit the majority of crimes in America, but that's because blacks are only 13% of the population. Blacks are also more likely to commit violent crimes than whites.
Please don't make us look mathematically illiterate, anon. It's not good for the movement.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.