What is PC?

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: What is PC?

Postby Zander » 27 May 2017, 03:32

However, because of the fear of misuse of arguments by unpleasant sections of society, mainstream society and, more importantly, academics are contained from investigating phenomena.

Let's try another way. Are European Jews brighter than the average white European? Apparently, probably, yes


Ahh yes a wiki page about dozens of scholars and pundits debating a "taboo subject." Surely evidence that political correctness stifles discussion :roll:

The whole race/intelligence thing was talked to death after the publication of the Bell Curve in the 90s. It's not some unbrouched subject.

Humans do not have "vastly different physical characteristics between different human groups." We are a young species which had a brush with death during a fairly recent population bottleneck. As such we are remarkably genetically similar. Take any two humans anywhere in the world and compare them, and they will differ by just .1% of DNA. To put that in perspective, a typical group of chimpanzees has more genetic diversity then the entire human race. Humans do have some regional tweaks- but they tend to be simple tweaks that have to do with the immediate environment. Just overlap a global UV radiation map with one on skin tone to see what I mean. But intelligence is a lot more complicated then melanin- the brain is the most sophisticated organ we have.

Let's try another way. Are European Jews brighter than the average white European? Apparently, probably, yes.

I mean perhaps their average IQ is fairly high right now. But IQ in groups is weird. Average IQ tends to go up over time. This change varies by country and (occasionally) by ethnic group. Maybe other ethnic groups will rise to meet them someday?

Also, as an alleged historian- I don't trust any theory that relies on medieval marriage keeping a group genetically isolated.
Last edited by Zander on 27 May 2017, 05:08, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Zander
 
Posts: 6011
Joined: 09 Jan 2009, 07:26
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: What is PC?

Postby Crunkus » 27 May 2017, 03:48

Bromley86 wrote:It's quite interesting that we've had a perfect example of PC with the moderator action in this thread. I'm not criticising the mods; they're constrained by the environment. Nor am I endorsing the veracity of the removed claim. However, because of the fear of misuse of arguments by unpleasant sections of society, mainstream society and, more importantly, academics are contained from investigating phenomena.


It's not clear to me how this is "an example of PC".

Is PC loosely defined as any disapproval you disagree with? Then yeah, PC bad. On the same token, murder (killing we do not approve of) also bad. Both are bad by definition.

Whether or not and to what degree the moderator action was warranted or not is irrelevant to the discussion of PC.

PC is a wedge word used to unrigorously disparage something you don't agree with by associating it vaguely with something else that is disagreed with. It is usually accompanied by an unwillingness to discuss particulars and reference to vague cabals of people with spooky influence. It's nonsense, and people gobble it up at the trough and ask for seconds.

If you want to use the original usage of the term instead of what it has devolved into, it certainly doesn't apply here unless the moderators' actions are considered political in some way. Hard to intelligently discuss something that was deemed unfit for our eyes, but I'm sure it's for the greater good. Not PC, just wrong.

This being a thread about what is PC, it's probably a good idea to identify specifically what you mean by the word if offering something up as perfectly example of it. It's not like there's a universally understood or used definition within this thread or common usage.

What phenomena is investigation into specifically being suppressed, how, and by whom?

Again, PC is usually essentially on the same level as a host of other common phrases and buzzwords employed in essentially a conspiratorial capacity designed to make veiled assertions that are "obvious" and never need to be properly made explicit or justified.



Bromley86 wrote:Let's try another way. Are European Jews brighter than the average white European? Apparently, probably, yes. One only has to look at dog breeds to see that this is possible to achieve. Or at the vastly different physical characteristics between different human groups.

Anyway, purely coincidentally, I saw an excellent documentary by Trevor Phillips, former head of that white knight of PC thought and social engineering, the Commission for Racial Equality. He's had a Damascene conversion. Well worth watching, or listening to in the background, if you have a spare hour.


What a scientifically rigorous examination of the issue. Thankfully, despite what you implied earlier, there is plenty of actual study in the area (Phillips talks about some of it in that documentary, and it's not particular new stuff by any stretch of the imagination), and when one doesn't constrain oneself to cherry picking information that appears to suggest an unstated point the actual relevance and definitions of the genetic differences between populations boils out to contain no subordinated secret that people are significantly different depending upon their genetic heritage in a way that could be conceivably relevant to most forms of decision making.

What's dangerous is people uncritically leaping from one "fact" to another conclusion buttressed by the falacious idea that nobody has ever had the anti-PC gumption to look the truth in the eye. That's usually unsubstantiated BS that neatly sidesteps the actual reasons people disagree with you about what you believe. By suggesting that everyone else is merely putting their head in the sand, you fool first yourself, and then others into thinking you're being rigorous about how you get from point A to point B.

That's the thing. Simply putting a racial factoid out there and leaving the relevance unstated is ridiculous racist. You want to rigorously investigate and have an academic and scientific discussion on the issue...go to town. But dropping factoids and then arching your eyebrows and saying "THEY wouldn't want us to say that" is best left to your racist uncle at the dinner table. It's not any more sophisticated than that. It certainly doesn't present any sort of enlightened alternative to the "PC Crusader" paradigm.

It's not necessary to invoke the concept of PC.

Simple state what you believe, buttress it with a thorough enough argument in an appropriate setting (they abound) and if it has any merit, it will do just fine.

There are numerous examples of governments actually suppressing research for political reasons...into gun violence, better understanding the effects of common drugs that seem quite a bit more pressing considering their direct relevance to policy decisions under contention.

Why do we not call it PC to suppress research into the effects of guns in households, but we do suggest it's PC if it involves suggesting we shouldn't collect data in one context or another about race? I submit that's direct evidence it's not about whether it's motivated for political reasons or not...it's being used only for things one disagrees with.

If the word political is involved...it's about the motivation. If the word means ANYTHING, suppressing gun research is an example of politically correct reasoning. The world is filled with decisions made for political rather than reasons relating to their being particular good solutions to actual non-political problems. What is ACTUALLY dangerous is the suggestion that this is something that somehow only applies to what you disagree with and divorcing the charge from any sort of active interest in discussing particulars.

In short anti-PC is just politically correct nonsense so much that it basically makes the exceptions worthy of a more descriptive label.

Demand better and more outcome based decision making and assessment of how that decision's playing out. Regardless of who is in charge. If PC is the alternative, then sure, I'm against bad decision making and killing puppies. We all have that in common. I'm not sure what is being made clear by saying so though.

To add to what Zander correctly points out, most human genetic variation is within heritage population groups not between them.
referenced article
from the above article, final discussion paragraph wrote:The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.


In other words, the more you actually study it, as many people already have, it becomes obvious how dangerous and ignorant most of these sorts of things are.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: What is PC?

Postby Jack007 » 27 May 2017, 18:17

Freedom of speech is measured by what you want to hear or read the less. If you cannot endure exactly this, then there is no freedom of speech.

:(
Jack007 (2/4 stars) banned unbanned for not shuting up

Member of the Honorables
Singer of the Praises
Mentor of the Champions (or was it the inverse?)

There is no greater solitude than the samurai's, unless it be that of the tiger in the jungle… perhaps…
- Bushido (The Book of the Samurais)
User avatar
Jack007
Premium Member
 
Posts: 835
Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 17:34
Location: Gulf of Lyon (Palma de Mallorca)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1238
All-game rating: 1569
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: What is PC?

Postby Bromley86 » 28 May 2017, 14:37

WHSeward wrote:@Bromley86, the moderators did not feel constrained by the environment (whatever environment that you are referring to). This is about the kind of site and Forum we have. There are plenty of places on the internet for spewing or consuming bigotry or hate. PlayDiplomacy is not one of them.

If you want to have a thoughtful discussion of the significance or lack thereof of the existence of sub-populations with different mean IQs, go right ahead. The key word is thoughtful. The sophomoric posts in this thread were deleted because they missed the bar.

There really is no place at PlayDip at all for calling acts of murder justified on the basis of some purported political position held by neither the attackers nor the victims. That is just nonsense and offensive.


Ah, apologies then. I recall seeing something about race (yes, I know) and intelligence, and then it was gone. I didn't see anything that I thought crossed a line; clearly I either didn't look close enough, or I didn't see the post(s) you're referring to.

The discussion of things that touched on race/culture have been very taboo in the UK over the past 20 years; I suspect that there's been some of that over in the US too. That was the environment that I was referring to.

Zander wrote:Ahh yes a wiki page about dozens of scholars and pundits debating a "taboo subject." Surely evidence that political correctness stifles discussion :roll:


I'll admit, I've not delved deeply into it. A quick look at Wiki (another "yes, I know") shows that suggesting that some may be genetically predisposed to a different mean intelligence can land even a Nobel laureate, albeit one who's an interesting character, in hot water. I doubt it's top of the list of things that young scientists want to make their field of study then.

Crunkus wrote:It's not clear to me how this is "an example of PC".


I suspect my apology to WHS will cover that.

That's the thing. Simply putting a racial factoid out there and leaving the relevance unstated is ridiculous racist. You want to rigorously investigate and have an academic and scientific discussion on the issue...go to town. But dropping factoids and then arching your eyebrows and saying "THEY wouldn't want us to say that" is best left to your racist uncle at the dinner table. It's not any more sophisticated than that.


So, now I'm a racist? I suppose, technically, you're correct. After all, I did post a statement that clearly demonstrated that I believe "that a particular race is superior to another", although I'd suggest that, not being Jewish, I probably got it the wrong way around. The context, of course, was around the belief that negative points about race and intelligence had been removed just because they were negative; it's always easier to talk about positive points, from a PC perspective. Even if you didn't realise that, to suggest someone is racist for this is patently ridiculous.

I will freely admit to being culturist, although again my preference is not always for my own culture.
A member of the Classicists, a group that aims to reduce NMRs/surrenders.
Bromley86
 
Posts: 503
Joined: 02 May 2012, 00:16
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1880)
All-game rating: (2233)
Timezone: GMT+12

Re: What is PC?

Postby Zander » 28 May 2017, 18:10

I'll admit, I've not delved deeply into it. A quick look at Wiki (another "yes, I know") shows that suggesting that some may be genetically predisposed to a different mean intelligence can land even a Nobel laureate, albeit one who's an interesting character, in hot water. I doubt it's top of the list of things that young scientists want to make their field of study then.


You'll notice the other two examples given by that wiki article involved criticisms but no actual firings. Criticisms are the opposite of infringement on free speech- they are people speaking freely. And one of those two controversies included an attempt to get police involved- an attempt which was soundly dismissed without even an investigation. Also all took place pre-2008 which is odd, because usually "PC" is a term either associated with the 90s, or the last four years or so.

As for the Nobel laureate, "Interesting character" is an understatement. He has been making controversial statements for decades. And, according to his wiki page, he describes his colleagues as "dinosaurs", "deadbeats", "fossils", "has-beens", "mediocre", and "vapid" in his memoir. Dude, if you insult everyone you worked with in your memoir, say controversial things for ~20 years, and then top it off by suggesting that African countries are (despite evidence to the contrary) inferior based on genetics, you are gonna get fired. That's not PC culture, that's just basic office politics. Goodness knows the private sector wouldn't even have been half as forgiving.

The discussion of things that touched on race/culture have been very taboo in the UK over the past 20 years; I suspect that there's been some of that over in the US too. That was the environment that I was referring to.

Race is always on the table in the US. It is impossible to understand the geographical distribution of the Republicans and Democrats without taking racism into account. It is also impossible to understand the geographic distribution of white and black people without understanding the practices of white flight and redlining, which Northerners are just as guilt of as Southerners. We might not call Africans American "superpredators" anymore, but we will totally elect someone who talks about "bad hombres," associates all Mexicans with rape (but don't worry some are good people), accuses the president of being a Muslim from Kenya (despite Kenya being a mostly Christian country seriously I never got this one), and once took out a two page add calling for the death penalty for a group of black men who were exonerated by DNA evidence.

As for culture, the idea that WASP(Less P More C) values are a fundamental part of American democracy is a cornerstone of the Republican platform. The idea that Black people are just unmotivated is literally mainstream republican opinion. It HAS to be black people's fault, you see. Conservatives think the system is fair. So if anyone is failing in the system it's not the fault of the system. It's the fault of the person, or the people. No tweaking is necessary. It's fair guys. We promise. Now let us give more tax breaks to rich people.
User avatar
Zander
 
Posts: 6011
Joined: 09 Jan 2009, 07:26
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Previous

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests