Thoughts on the less "PC" culture in China

[ablindwatchmaker]

My point is not to debate those statements

I know, I just wanted to make my position clear.

 

 

I really doubt that. I think it's likely a case of the people you talking to about things you have an opinion on agreeing with your opinion.

 

This might be true. I largely associated with highly educated Chinese students and professionals, which isn't exactly representative of the population. I honestly didn't think about that very much, but I do find it interesting that I had more in common with them than I do similarly situated people in the US. As an example, I was regularly at odds with other students from the US.

 

 

I would like to remark that I get the impression you are a straight white man

 

Yes, and there is no doubt that this makes it easier for me to discuss certain issues without as much emotional investment. I also agree that discretion is necessary with respect to certain issues, and I don't want to give the impression that I walk around acting like an insensitive jerk because I do not. I'm just saying that it seems easier to have a serious conversation about issues, at random, than it does here, without making people angry. Maybe you are right about them just happening to agree with what I said. I will say that I am not driven to the polls by social issues as much as I am by economic and foreign policy issues, so it is possible that I am just generally less sensitive. That being said, I'm a fairly liberal guy, so I definitely won't vote for people who aren't pretty progressive.

 

 

I won't continue this discussion much longer, because we'll soon fall into discussing which points of view are rational and which aren't

 

That's a different issue. Whether or not it is me or the other party that is factually wrong on a given issue is not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about emotional triggers that come up which change the nature of conversations from rational dialogue, such as the one we are currently having, to the kinds of conversations people tend to have when they are angry, which don't even allow for a discussion of things in terms of their factual accuracy.

 

Finally, I'm not questioning the value of a certain degree of PC, as I believe it plays an important role in furthering social progress. I was just wondering if anyone else had similar perceptions.

 

I'm sorry it took me so long to respond. I had to leave before I could respond and only recently arrived home.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

Just yesterday I complained about the quality of a poorly written article about adoption and was accused of being cruel and the reason why adoptees won't talk when I hadn't said anything at all about adoptees. Just about the article being of extremely poor quality and not even seeing a message to evaluate.

 

This is a much better example than what I brought up. Something seemingly harmless turns out to be a hate crime that should be punishable by firing squad lol. The recent example of the NASA scientist who was berated for wearing the wrong shirt and turned into a thought criminal is another great example. In my experience, it is things like this that just don't seem to be as big of a problem in China, and I really appreciate that.

 

 

What topics did you discuss in China? What topics haven't been able to discuss in Austin?

 

The most glaring are the conversations that relate to sex and race, but I've personally had more trouble with sex-related topics than race. The general theme seems to relate to making statements about any human traits that suggest there may be a limitation outside one's control, or statements that suggest a preference for something that not everyone possesses. I'm sure there are other reasons I don't understand, but those come to mind.

For instance, if someone says they like when a women has long legs (just an example), in the context of discussing dating preferences, then the PC way of approaching this is to say that they are objectifying women. This isn't any worse than someone expressing a preference for an optimist over a pessimist, or someone with artistic ability over one who lacks it. There are numerous examples, and they increase day by day in the US. I genuinely believe that it has reached the point of being dangerous to the free expression of ideas and is choking our civil society.

 

 

Are you saying that (well-educated) Chinese on average knows less both about their own history and culture, and history and culture more generally, than (well-educated) Americans or Europeans?

 

I think he is referring to how much an average college graduate in the US is required to know as a condition of graduation, regardless of major, relative to the Chinese norm. For instance, if the average degree requires 120 credits in the US, only half at the very most will pertain to one's actual specialization. I can't tell you how many classes I've had to take that I didn't need....In China, they heavily specialize and aren't required to take nearly as many unrelated courses. For the average person in any given country who isn't particularly inquisitive about more academic topics in their spare time, I can see how this might influence the different rates at which people are engaged with topics and as result don't have as many emotional connections to issues, rightly or wrongly.

 

 

I'm also not sure what you mean by 'filter' turning on/off.

 

I just mean not having to watch every word to make sure that I'm not offending someone.

 

 

I'm not sure it's worse in the west then it is in other area's.

 

I think it is worse, but It is hard to quantify, so I can't say with certainty.

 

As far as the things that are PC in China, It's hard to compare them to what we have in the west because of how different the Chinese political structure is from the US. The origins, reinforcement mechanisms, and non-compliance penalties are all are very different than the issues here.

 

 

I don't think that this is only a reflection of a PC culture.

 

Well, the list you quoted is a long one and I'm not about to attempt unpacking it to understand what is or isn't and to what degree lol. That being said, I agree. 

 

 

 

intellectual ability, personality, physical attractiveness, religion, culture, class, race

The problem with all the things you've mentioned is that they are wishy-washy, unscientific categories with very stretchy definitions. While everybody will agree on categories like "tall", they will typically disagree on questions of personality, attractiveness, and even culture and race, because everybody is using a different set of definitions.

 

None of the fields in which these topics are scientifically studied are comparable to Physics or mathematics in terms of the scientific rigor, but every one of those issues can be rationally discussed and studied. It's not perfect, but we can make observations about these types of things, build on our knowledge about them, and finally, make some reasonably objective statements about them. These topics are by no means off-limits to reason (not suggesting you said they were). They are difficult conversations, but people need to have them and there are ways of agreeing to specific parameters in which things can be discussed and evaluated. I absolutely agree that a large number of people can't have these conversations without things quickly devolving into garbage, and that is the crux of the problem. It has gotten really bad in the United States, in my opinion, and needs to stop. I think it is worse here than in many places, but I don't know for sure.

----------

 

 

Outside of the factual nature of a claim, there are ways to have conversations regardless of whether the "PC violator" is wrong that are more constructive. A great example is the recent exchange between Sam Harris and Ben Affleck on Bill Maher about Islam and the connection between beliefs and actions, in general. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

 

I highly encourage everyone to watch this video if they want to see what a BAD response to a violation of PC protocol looks like--this is not uncommon in the US. In this video, Ben Affleck loses his ability to think clearly almost immediately and fails to understand the argument that is even being discussed. He labels Sam Harris a racist and thinks the conversation is over. Personally, I think Sam Harris makes good points in this video but underestimates the role of imperialism (this is beside the point). Later, Sam Harris spent 3 hours with the young Turks and the two had a rational conversation about the issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU

 

The basic idea is that things can be discussed, we don't need a thought police, and if someone is upset about people having ideas that bother them, they ultimately need to get over it. People can say what they want, and there is nothing you SHOULD be able to do to stop them. If people are acting irrationally and making baseless accusations, that is one thing, but if someone says something that you don't like and comes at you with evidence and a measured approach, you should not assume they are evil and have nothing useful to say.

 

In China, I don't think the themes I mentioned in previous posts are as difficult to discuss in China, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they aren't as sensitive, for whatever reason, in general, but I don't know.

[renzhe]

if someone is upset about people having ideas that bother them, they ultimately need to get over it.

But isn't this whole thread just you being upset about people who have ideas that bother you?

If somebody thinks that you're objectifying women, why not just get over it?

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

Isn't this whole thread just you complaining about people who have ideas that bother you?

 

Not exactly, lol.

 

It' a cross-cultural comparison and discussion of political culture. What I am doing bears little similarity to PC culture in the United States. The problem with PC culture is not that it involves complaints as much as it is about preventing other people from thinking about topics at all, usually by pretty aggressive public shaming that often takes the form of what is essentially slander.

 

If somebody thinks that you're objectifying women, why not just get over it?

 

I don't mind if they have a good reason to think that and want to have a conversation about it. The difference is that I'm not going to go out in public and make completely baseless accusations that rely on emotional appeal as a response. If I disagree, it won't be because my feelings hurt.

[renzhe]

Well, to be honest, you did accuse them of believing in a blank slate, as well as living in the matrix and/or ingesting some kind of drug that is making them delusional.

Personally, I respect people who speak their mind. But I will also speak mine.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

Well, to be honest, you did accuse them of believing in a blank slate, as well as living in the matrix and/or ingesting some kind of drug that is making them delusional.

 

I have no idea what underlies the phenomena, but blank slate ideas are not uncommon. Steven Pinker talks about this idea as it's related to other topics if you are interested.

 

The second statement is supposed to be funny and refers to a caricature of PC culture to which everyone can relate. This comment doesn't refer to any of the people I specifically mentioned isn't supposed to be taken very seriously. Perhaps bad writing on my part.

 

 

Personally, I respect people who speak their mind. But I will also speak mine.

 

Agreed.The idea that PC culture limits freedom of expression and thought is the main idea. However, having the opinion that someone effectively shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion is unacceptable to me. That's a subjective value preference. I think most people can agree with that statement.

[Silent]

 

I think Sam Harris makes good points in this video

Don't know what points you're referring too. Too me he comes across as a fool with a statement like 'Islam is the motherload of bad idea's'. I would like to see that substantiated before I buy into that. I don't see how Islam is worse in this respect from Christianity or the Jewish fate (and many other religions).

 

Sure Islam gives most headache but I don't think that has anything to do with Islam but everything to do with demographics, development and especially politics. Islam is simply one of the largest religions on earth so statistically seen it's expected that it will give rise to comparatively big numbers of abuses. It has believers that often have limited education and economic means which makes it for unscrupulous people relatively easy to manipulate them into believes and behavior to suit their personal interests. Politics of course has huge impact too. The islamic world is often demonized and mistreated by western politics. First there was colonialism, then they became 'independence' but often with regimes largely influenced by the west and the western need for cheap oil and in recent years they're bombed on a regular basis. At the same time the worse offender of international law in number of violations of U.N security council resolutions and in direct conflict with Islamic peoples, Israel is explicitly supported by the west. I understand very well why Islam is a fertile ground for anti-western sentiments and fundamentalism.

 

It may be PC to say that criticism of Islam is a different thing from criticism of muslims, to me it looks like a clever way to distract from the real issue. It's not Islam or muslims, the issue is unjust treatment of people and the sentiments this creates. The issue is the hypocrisy of western foreign policy that chooses to measure the way that suits them (short term) best without much consideration for legal and ethic issue's.

 

And then of course, the debate is entirely based on the modern western value system which is still rooted in the Christian believe system. IMHO that value system is not that different from the mainstream islamic value system, but still should be open for debate. Why should the western value system be better then a random different value system?

 

But of course this all is just my 2 cents.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

Don't know what points you're referring too.

 

When he talks about the percentage of the population that believe certain things. Unless someone can dig up some evidence to the contrary, it seems that his statement that Islam as it is currently practiced is more extreme than other religions, even among the non-violent population, seems to hold up. I also agree that the ideas that people have about abstract things, like religious precepts, are important and that not all religions are equally bad or equally good. I have only read pieces of the Qur'an, so I can't compare it to the bible, but if it is anywhere near as bloody as the bible (which I've unfortunately read) then that's serious cause for concern, assuming these poll numbers are accurate. Harris claims that there is a more direct connection between the Qur'an and violent action than in the bible, but I haven't done enough of my own research to verify it. His book The End of Faith talks about it in great detail, if you want to get a better understanding of his examination of the Qur'an.

 

That being said, I pretty much agree with everything you said. Sam Harris has always been inclined to give religion more credit than it deserves and seems to ignore the legacy of imperialism, as well as the fact that it is still going on as strong as it ever was. Imperialism is definitely the elephant in the room, not Islam.

 

 

Islam is the motherload of bad idea's

 

Sure, its an exaggeration, but the point he is making is that there are enough bad ideas in it that are dangerously opposed to our ideas of what a society should look like that it shouldn't be given a free pass because it is a religion. 

 

 

to me it looks like a clever way to distract from the real issue. It's not Islam or muslims, the issue is unjust treatment of people and the sentiments this creates. The issue is the hypocrisy of western foreign policy that chooses to measure the way that suits them (short term) best without much consideration for legal and ethic issue's.

 

I definitely don't think it is a distraction. I think it is important to criticize things like this, but I agree that people ARE using it in this way and that it makes it much easier for the US government to maintain political support for the empire.

 

 

I understand very well why Islam is a fertile ground for anti-western sentiments and fundamentalism.

 

Yep. It amazes me how people can't realize this. For many Americans, the beginning of history was 2001 lol.

 

 

Why should the western value system be better then a random different value system?

 

Well, I would say something like the Bill of Rights (as a philosophical doctrine), provide for a better society than one built on something like the Qu'ran or gods commandments in the bible. At the end of the day, that is subjective and I cant prove something like "Freedom of speech" is good, but everyone has to draw the line somewhere.

[Silent]

 

When he talks about the percentage of the population that believe certain things. Unless someone can dig up some evidence to the contrary, it seems that his statement that Islam as it is currently practiced is more extreme than other religions, even among the non-violent population, seems to hold up.

He claims some statistics fair enough, to me however they come across as 'made up on the spot'. What is the source and how does it relate to statistics of other cultures? In what extend is it influenced by the phrasing of  the questions and cultural/linguistic factors of ways to express sentiments? I think  it's far from as clear cut as he presents it. It's certainly not in accordance to my experience with muslims at home (Netherlands) and abroad while traveling in predominant islamic regions (Tunesia, Morrocco, Oman, Palestine, Somaliland, Senegal, Turkey a.o.). At the same time I've heard some extreme points of view from other cultures most predominant in Israel where I was bluntly told by one Jew that the Palestinians were not allowed to resist as the Koran forbids violence, but that for the Jews it's different as the Torah does allow violence.

 

 

Sure, its an exaggeration, but the point he is making is that there are enough bad ideas in it that are dangerously opposed to our ideas of what a society should look like that it shouldn't be given a free pass because it is a religion.

 

I've read the bible, the koran and parts of the torah, I can assure you that the koran is no more violent then the bible and torah and is no more opposed to the western idea's of what society should look like. Admittedly I myself am not really that sure how society should look like. I'm however sure that I'm opposed to many of the hypocritical idea's of western society, but strongly believe that a working society without hypocrisy is (virtually) impossible. 

 

 

Well, I would say something like the Bill of Rights (as a philosophical doctrine), provide for a better society than one built on something like the Qu'ran or gods commandments in the bible. At the end of the day, that is subjective and I cant prove something like "Freedom of speech" is good, but everyone has to draw the line somewhere.

Belief in the bill of rights etc are imho just indoctrinations that don't differ significantly from religious indoctrination. I don't think there is any reason to be judgemental about it. In the end all those sets of behavioral guidelines are 'designed' on an evolutionary basis, to help to be the fittest and to survive. They must create a sense of unity and common interests within a group in order to unite (protect/fight) against threats  from the outside. At the same time the group must be diverse and flexible enough to be able to adapt to changing circumstances. There are many sets of rules that meet the criteria imaginable, including sets where equal rights, respect for life etc are not  commonplace and violence may be acceptable. Of course not PC, but actually, also western society considers violence acceptable, just look at the support levels for the wars in Irak, Afghanistan and Syria. When it comes to violence we're not that different from IS. No matter how much we deny it, violence is human nature, experiments have shown that over half of the people are willing to kill (non self defense) without significant pressure if placed in the right context.

[hedwards]

@Silent, I think the issue with Islam in that regard isn't the Koran, if I'm not greatly mistaken there's an Islamic equivalent to the Talmud. Or at any rate there's tons of clerics that issue their own Fatwas that instruct people how to practice. And those Fatwas may or may not violate the Koran, it all depends upon whom you ask.

[imron]

The thing about Islam is that ordinary, peace-loving Muslims rarely make the news, and when they do speak out no-one really listens.  Some people within Islam are slowly starting to realise this problem.

 

if I'm not greatly mistaken there's an Islamic equivalent to the Talmud

Islam recognises Judaism and Christianity and their prophets as all belonging to the same greater religion with the same God, to the point that Muhammad even explicitly forbade Muslims from killing or harming Christians.  Extremists and terrorists you see on the news don't represent Islam any more than child-raping priests represent Christianity.

[Silent]

 

And those Fatwas may or may not violate the Koran, it all depends upon whom you ask.

Violence is certainly not the intent of Islam just the same way as the bible is full of violence but does not intent to promote violence.  All scriptures are multiple interpretable and out of context quoting makes abuse very easy.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

He claims some statistics fair enough, to me however they come across as 'made up on the spot'. What is the source and how does it relate to statistics of other cultures? In what extend is it influenced by the phrasing of  the questions and cultural/linguistic factors of ways to express sentiments?

 

I strongly doubt Sam Harris would make up stats. The guy is a huge !@#$hole, no doubt about it, but I've always found him to be pretty thorough when he makes a claim like that. Hopefully, Harris or someone else can get all of the data together and have a discussion about it.

 

 

Belief in the bill of rights etc are imho just indoctrinations that don't differ significantly from religious indoctrination

 

No, if you make that statement then we might as well give up discussing the legitimacy of any idea. Some ideas can be justified more than others. There are differences between appeals to reason and appeals to religion. Real differences that have consequences.

 

 

In the end all those sets of behavioral guidelines are 'designed' on an evolutionary basis, to help to be the fittest and to survive. They must create a sense of unity and common interests within a group in order to unite (protect/fight) against threats  from the outside. At the same time the group must be diverse and flexible enough to be able to adapt to changing circumstances. There are many sets of rules that meet the criteria imaginable, including sets where equal rights, respect for life etc are not  commonplace and violence may be acceptable.

 

I agree with you, everything we do is derived from basic evolutionary principles, at some level, but that doesn't mean that those expressions are all equally valid for everyone at the same time. As you say, you could make arguments for a number of things with which westerners strongly disagree in terms of how to organize society (I am no fan boy, trust me), but as a human YOU belong to a set and certain ideas are good, from your perspective, and others are not good. No one can deny this.

 

 

Of course not PC, but actually, also western society considers violence acceptable, just look at the support levels for the wars in Irak, Afghanistan and Syria. When it comes to violence we're not that different from IS. No matter how much we deny it, violence is human nature, experiments have shown that over half of the people are willing to kill (non self defense) without significant pressure if placed in the right context.

 

I completely agree. Humans are capable of violence regardless of what they believe, but it doesn't change the idea that ideas can instigate and make problems worse. I suspect that the main reason we have to be PC about this issue is to prevent the critical eye from turning on Christianity. It's hard to get upset about Islam when Christians here in the west have similar problems, they just happen to be loaded with wealth by comparison and are rarely in danger of being killed from the sky, to name one example. 

 

 

The issue that I take with people when talking about a large number of ideas is the "equality" trap, where people are afraid to make a statement about anything that suggests something might be less important, less valid, etc. I will, however, acknowledge that when the hordes are given a complex issue, it often turns into something completely different and creates more problems than the value of discussing the truth in the first place. Your points about US actions in the Middle East are a shining example. I know MANY people who would use these arguments to diminish the legitimacy of the complaints that people in the Middle East rightfully have, simultaneously profess belief in the divinity of Christ, and then advocate for total war in the Middle East

 

As far as China goes, I maintain that based on my experience, they just don't think this way about many issues. Indoctrination in China is very different from what we experience in the west and has a stronger foundation in materialism. In fact, I think that between religion, our education system and media, our population may be less capable of thinking clearly about a wide variety of things.

 

[Shelley]

Well this topic has taken a road I don't want to travel, shame started out ok. Hitting unfollow now.

[ablindwatchmaker]

You know what, I think I understand the PC difference a little more.

 

In many political science textbooks you will find that analysts often discuss various political systems in terms of the relative importance of the following three values: equality, religion, and order. In America, I would say that freedom is the most valued of the three but is closely contested by equality, and order is a distant third. Personally, I tend to value order over freedom and equality by a sizable margin, and finally freedom over equality by a significant but not large margin. In China, if you look closely, you will find that there are many examples, though I'm biased so I didn't initially notice, of seemingly minor habits and customs that the Chinese take very seriously that no one in the US would ever care about. Of course the US has them, but we care a lot less about conventions like this. It's possible that I never noticed in China because I don't mind behaviors that tend to reflect a strong preference for social order.

 

The reason that I couldn't see it before is because it's possible that PC conventions that arise from a preference for equality and freedom are of a less concrete character and rely on more abstraction, and therefore are more subject to confusion and poor application.

[studychinese]

I am going to have to disagree with ablindwatchmaker.

While political correctness is a terrible burden on the rational mind, the example that you have given is terrible, mainly because criticising Islam is not verboten, and there are lots of people that do it that have not become persona non grata. In many ways it is open season on Islam.

What is verboten is suggesting that there should be immigration restriction of Muslims into Western countries. But Islam itself has less pull than the feminist professors that brought down the President of Harvard, Lawrence Summers.

Writer Theodore Dalrymple write that, "Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

the example that you have given is terrible

 

I actually brought up the Sam Harris thing to showcase the insanity that is Ben Affleck, but if people didn't watch the video or focused on the Islam issue then I'm not surprised at all that it ended up being a crappy example. I actually agree that Islam is no where near as protected as the other issues I mentioned, and I agree that it is on the verge of justifying yet ANOTHER incursion into the Middle East.

 

How about the example of the scientist who landed the satellite and was subsequently humiliated for wearing the wrong damn shirt?

 

 

What is verboten is suggesting that there should be immigration restriction of Muslims into Western countries. But Islam itself has less pull than the feminist professors that brought down the President of Harvard, Lawrence Summers.

 

Yeah, singling out people like that is much further than I am willing to go in my criticism, yet. At the same time, I understand that a people has a right to NOT want to open their society to everyone. If I were told that millions of people were immigrating to the US who believed in the subjugation of women and were actively planning on practicing it in violation of our laws, I would vote to restrict their numbers without question. I'm not saying this is what is happening as I have never been to Europe, but I've heard from many people in Europe that they don't like it and want it to stop. They should be allowed to do that if they want.

 

One thing I can guarantee is that the Chinese wouldn't tolerate ANY foreign culture trying to exert influence that contradicted the Chinese view.

[renzhe]

How about the example of the scientist who landed the satellite and was subsequently humiliated for wearing the wrong damn shirt?

He should just get over it?

Because the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion about his shirt is unacceptable to you?

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

He should just get over it?

Because the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion about his shirt is unacceptable to you?

 

The point is that people's livelihoods are affected by these witch-hunts and have serious consequences. People's careers are often destroyed and are socially ostracized because they hold opinions that hurt someone's feelings. In the case of this scientist, I have a funny feeling he doesn't support the oppression of women in science.One can't really say America supports the freedom of speech or say they personally support it when the prevailing PC culture dictates that you try your hardest to to make people pay dearly for holding different opinions. Just because the government isn't involved doesn't make it any better. The tyranny of the majority is very, very real, and sometimes dangerous. The sad state of affairs on universities across this country are great examples. It has now become the norm to suppress speech in the name of freedom and equality when you don't agree with someone's idea, which is completely ridiculous.This is why I find it so ludicrous when people talk about everyone being entitled to opinion and then try to suppress other opinions by all means necessary.

[renzhe]

The point is that people's livelihoods are affected by these witch-hunts and have serious consequences.

Banning speech because it can have serious consequences is the very definition of political correctness.

In this case we have one scientist who wore a stupid shirt and got away with a bruised ego. At the same time, racism gave us the Holocaust. Sexism gave us millions of battered women. You are upset about the wrong "serious consequences".

If you are going to tolerate filth about "white Europe" and racial superiority, then you have to also tolerate speech that opposes it. It's the price you have to pay for free speech, I'm afraid. You don't get to silence those who do not agree with you -- in this case, calling a guy's shirt sexist.