The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central The Coddling of the American Mind

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

This is probably the best article I have seen on anything in a very, very long time.

Even though The Atlantic is a fairly liberal periodical, ironically this article espouses something that sensible conservatives and libertarians have been saying for a very, very long time.

Apparently the problem has reached such epic proportions that even the mainstream left is taking note and starting to worry about the consequences.

I came here to link this very article.

Derid, do your part and offend someone. Here is my part.

I personally find regular and on-going raping of the scientific method by the hysterical cunts in the social studies department personally, and deeply offensive. Instead, they should make me a sandwich.

There is a huge cavernous difference between admonishing speech in the academic setting in the name of victimization to the point of restricting academic freedom, and Trump resting on the new conservative rejection of "political correctness" to avoid answering for his misogyny.

The academic freedom issue is fairly serious, legally speaking, but clearly falls on the side of societal good. It's hogwash to universally deny education relating to rape (for example) so individuals with related psychological trauma won't have to hear the word. On the other hand, it should be clear to everyone that it is medically possible for a person to be harmed by a member of authority pushing an agenda which the person finds traumatizing. It's possible for the person to experience this as discrimination. So a person might not want to be party to that education and I think it's fair to have accommodation for that at the personal level assuming affected parties agree. I just don't believe that is sufficient to prescribe that to the body politic to avoid harming the person.

With the hump day example from the article, this is no longer a question of academic freedom, this is extracurricular. I think it's legally fine if the university wants to bow to pressure to remove iconography which some consider to be offensive in this case, and I also think it would be fine if they stood with their plans.

However this is where the constitutional line is drawn, and not necessarily where the societal line should be drawn. Rejecting "political correctness" does not give you free reign to be an offensive asshole without consequence. As a member of the public, not a person in authority, you have the right, the legal right, to be an asshole; but we also have the right to treat you like an outcast for it. This is where Fox and Trump gets it wrong, so please don't make Trump's mistake in your personal lives. I do love the irony of Trump using that tactic straight out of Fox's field guide against Fox, though.

I am pretty far left of spectrum, which is why I strongly believe in the legal freedom of speech for all parties. It's a double-edged sword. This shouldn't be a big surprise.

I think the problem rests in placing any importance whatsoever on "how a person chooses to take it" with no objective standard.

So we are supposed to arrange society and our lives around how the most sensitive, self-important, faux-egalitarian choose to hear something? That is what is hogwash. The university in the hump case may be legally OK to stop the event, but encouraging that type of behavior is unhealthy.

And more importantly, it is an intellectual breeding ground for weak minded people who have no sense of reality.

Though I would certainly agree as well that Trump should expect and receive public backlash for his actions. Just as we should all have freedom to express, that includes freedom to express disdain and condemnation.

But official and institutional backlash for simply having a political or social opinion that does not conform to PC hivemind has been a growing problem on campuses for almost 2 decades. Continuing to abet this type of behavior will have disastrous consequences.

I see where you're coming from and I have personally seen how social conformity around these issues can lead to an unexamined parroting of them. I just disagree that it's always bad. I do think public universities have to uphold a more professional and sensitive standard than private universities or other entities because they ultimately answer to the populace. Same thing with Trump, I think it's especially inexcusable for him because he is running for public office.

The problem is that I've also seen, and demonstrated in the Trump example, how unexamined parroting of this rejection is bad as well. I have family members I would consider to be racist and sexist who buy into this rhetoric because it makes them feel good about not reconsidering their own actions. It's really easy to say you are justified in your harmful opinions and actions because sometimes being sensitive is bad. So the weak minded you speak of are everywhere, it's a problem of human psychology. I have no answer for it.

I think it is important to highlight this. Modern social standards do not apply "reasonable person" caveat, and over-emphasize on never questioning the victim. This works well for victim support mechanism, but completely falls apart as a justice mechanism. This is why "social justice" became derisive term.

There is no question that Trump is many kinds of -ist, but the acquisition of misogyny is so frequently abused that it became meaningless. If anything, it became purely social signaling and display of virtuous behavior in certain circles. This is why Trump could shrug it off and move on.

The above is a direct result of cult of anti-privilege (aka victimhood) perpetrated in the social studies circles. More they stretch the definitions, less meaningful any specific instance, no matter how egregious, becomes.

Sini, I think you nailed it 100%

I haven't read everything else yet, but this deserves massive kudos. Props Sini!

I'm quite sure the definition of misogyny retains its meaning despite what some people might do in its name. That there exists actors who may be taking "social justice" too far does not reduce the need for social justice, it does not refute the conclusion that society can improve from sensitivity, and it does not give anyone a pass for ignoring it.

That is my entire gripe with the conservative slant here. This is fundamentally the line which Trump crossed.

The "social justice" that Rawls spoke of in his Theory of Justice, and sought to identify by viewing social construct through a "veil of ignorance" , and the "social justice" promulgated and institutionalized by PC academia are completely different things though.

Honestly I fail to see any difference between Trump and a PC Warrior. They both ignore reason, and they are both toxic. Any worldview that eschews any pretense of rationality yet seeks levers of power over others is dangerous in my view.