Thoughts on the less "PC" culture in China

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

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.

 

You are repeatedly making the same points I'm making, in principle, yet seem to suggest that I am in opposition to it. Do you not see that there is a difference between preventing someone from speaking or expression and disagreeing with someone?

 

 

Racism gave us the Holocaust. Sexism gave us millions of battered women.

 

That's right, bad ideas have consequences....which is another point I have made repeatedly. If someone batters a woman, they should go to jail. If someone tries to strip the rights away from a group based on race, they should go to jail. The problem is that there is a line connecting these points that is fairly long. If you are afraid of an idea, then you counter it with a good one, but you don't try to suppress it, which is what PC culture effectively does. In fact, PC culture has the effect of preventing a rational discussion, which often leads to worse outcomes. John Stuart Mill wrote the best defense of the freedom of speech ever written, and I highly recommend it to anyone willing to read it.

[renzhe]

I was under the impression that you were criticising Affleck and T-shirt critics, calling them insane and linking them to censorship under the guise of political correctness.

If you fully support their right to voice their opinions, then we are not in disagreement.

[Guest realmayo]

That scientist shirt guy was witch-hunted by people who get off on stirring up fuss online.

I felt extremely sorry for him.

 

British cyclist Chris Boardman was, less severely, recently witch-hunted for being shown riding his bike on TV while not wearing a helmet.

The online hysteria refused to listen to reason, i.e. his reasons for not wearing one. People just jumped up and down online, insulted him and caused a fuss.

 

I think people like ganging up on others to be horrid.

And I think they end up pushing back the so-called progressive causes they cloak themselves in by this overreaction.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

If you fully support their right to voice their opinions, then we are not in disagreement.

 

I support it and vote accordingly, no question.

 

 

I was under the impression that you were criticising Affleck and T-shirt critics, calling them insane and linking them to censorship under the guise of political correctness.

 

In the case of Affleck, he repeatedly interrupted, made false accusations, and used appeals to emotion to discredit someone with whom he disagreed. When conversations are conducted that way, people learn nothing and problems aren't solved. They are often made worse. That is why I linked to another video in which the TYT host made solid arguments and progress toward understanding was made. I personally think Harris is way too focused on religion, but Affleck did nothing to convince me he was wrong. Others have, but not Affleck. I also distinguish between having an opinion and slander. Calling Sam Harris a racist was slander.

 

In the case of the T-shirt critics, I think a little less of a gut reaction and a more reasoned approach would have been useful. I think a link between a man who were a T-shirt depicting female cartoons with guns and the suppression of women in science is tenuous indeed, but let's discuss it civilly. In an example of someone I support doing the same thing, Richard Dawkins has been known to resort to insults in order to get an audience on his side. I do not like this, and it only bolsters his opposition.

 

It basically comes down to the way that discussions are carried out versus the fact that they are carried out. When I first encountered feminist thought, my first reaction wasn't to suppress them and slander them. I actually went to a meeting and heard them out. It turns out I agreed with some of their points. I just think western civil society is beginning to take a step back and is using too much emotional reasoning in public discourse.

[Guest realmayo]

.... Of course people are also capable of using a sometimes-justified backlash against too much PC simply to smuggle into discussion unfashionable bigotry.

 

People should probably spend less time getting angry online

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

British cyclist Chris Boardman was, less severely, recently witch-hunted for being shown riding his bike on TV while not wearing a helmet.

 

Wow. This is the kind of stuff that scares me. It seems innocuous at first, but overtime It morphs into something else altogether.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

People should probably spend less time getting angry online

 

lmao. Yes.

[renzhe]

I think people like ganging up on others to be horrid.

Actually, I agree with you there. There is a lot of lynch-mob mentality on the internet and there are many cases of overreaction.

[Silent]

 

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.

Why might we as well give up discussing the legitimacy of any idea?  It's all the same, made up sets of rules one should live by. Sure some ideas can be better justified then others, but you should justify these ideas based on the goals of these rules, create a liveable society. The major religions survived a fair bit longer then the bill of rights. Consequently I don't see why the bill of rights should be better then other religions. 

 

Sure there is a difference between appeals to reason and appeals to religion. There completely different things! Reason is a process to get to a set of rules, religion is the set of rules. I assume the point you want to make is that a set of rules based on reason (bill of rights) is more valuable then a set created in a different way (religion). I'm not sure religion is not created based on reason, but of course in a different time and consequently in a different style. The large religions have survived quite a bit longer then the bill of rights so I guess that says something about their quality. They are very good in pulling people together and to further the group. It may be my limited knowledge, but I've not seen this happen on a large scale with the bill of rights.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

I assume the point you want to make is that a set of rules based on reason (bill of rights) is more valuable then a set created in a different way (religion).

 

More valid when we are trying to make claims about observable reality and human institutions. As far as internal reality goes, that's subjective. Many people accomplish great things because of faith. I'll even admit that it can lead people to do things they never would have been able to do without it.

 

 

you should justify these ideas based on the goals of these rules, create a liveable society.

 

Agreed.

 

 

They are very good in pulling people together and to further the group. It may be my limited knowledge, but I've not seen this happen on a large scale with the bill of rights.

 

No question. Religion promotes solidarity within groups, but the problem is that religion is often terrible at pulling people from different groups together. That being said, I don't really care what people believe as long as they understand that religious claims are different from other claims.

[anonymoose]

What kind of ridiculous reasoning is that? I'm better than you because I'm older (have lasted longer) than you.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

What kind of ridiculous reasoning is that? I'm better than you because I'm older (have lasted longer) than you.

 

Yeah, for instance, science has accomplished more as a way to view reality in the last 100 years than religion has in the history of humanity.

 

If the enlightenment had never happened most of us on this forum would have been tortured to death. I would have been burned at the stake. One of  the most refreshing things about living in China was the lack of religion affecting people's thought processes so much. I'm NOT condoning the methods they used to achieve it, but it is refreshing nonetheless.

[Guest realmayo]

This topic is depressing. 'China is freer-thinking than the west cos they don't have religion' ... really? Hardly seemed a worldbeating hotbed of independent and innovative thought when I was there. In fact plenty of people in China are desperately seeking some kind of religion at the moment.

 

Gee, everyone's a wannabe Dawkins these days. Anti-religion is the new religion. I prefer the old ones.

[Guest realmayo]

Also, ablindwatchmaker, your post #6

 

And these are perfect examples of people being irrational. Of course the Chinese have their biases, but it is certainly possible for some people to look at things objectively and be reasonable, even when they are included within that group. I do it all of the time, and so do plenty of other people.

 

Don't you see the irony here? How on earth do you know that you're looking at things objectively and reasonably??? There's no way you can say that! Because how can you tell? It's a bit arrogant, really. It suggests you're no better than the PC crowd which you don't like: both sets are sure that they're right and hold the objective, ultimate truth, and that everyone else is blinkered or narrow-minded.

 

If the enlightenment had never happened most of us on this forum would have been tortured to death. I would have been burned at the stake

 

Extremely unlikely to be true. Because if the Enlightenment never happened, you wouldn't think the way you do today. Because your thoughts are not tapping into some ultimate truth. (That's religious thinking.) Instead they are subjective and a product of the society you come from.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

Gee, everyone's a wannabe Dawkins these days. Anti-religion is the new religion. I prefer the old ones.

 

You've probably never lived in an area where it had any impact on your life. It is OPPRESSIVE when a large percentage of people in a given community believe it and you don't.

 

 

This topic is depressing. 'China is freer-thinking than the west cos they don't have religion' ... really?

 

Why is everyone so sensitive? Depressing? The comment had no significance outside of the religion comment. I never said it was some hotbed of innovation. This is why I've given up on ever mentioning anything to anyone, ever, that is remotely serious. Everyone is so sensitive about everything these days. It's like one day I woke up and everyone was crying....

[Silent]

 

No question. Religion promotes solidarity within groups, but the problem is that religion is often terrible at pulling people from different groups together.

Yes, that's what I say. Religion is there to promote cohesion within a group and to fight/defend against the external world to promote own interests. Or perhaps better the interests of the high priests.

 

 

What kind of ridiculous reasoning is that? I'm better than you because I'm older (have lasted longer) than you.

I've not written they are better, actually I feel people should be less judgemental. What is good for one thing is bad for the opposite.  Good and bad are just derivatives from the value set one has.

 

I just say that it has done a good job in pulling together groups of people for a long time that I've not seen from the bill of rights. In the end the proof of the pudding is in eating it. Religion has a longer proven track record then the bill of rights. We've to see or the bill of rights will in the long run have the same value in pulling together people and help in their survival. 

 

 

Yeah, for instance, science has accomplished more as a way to view reality in the last 100 years than religion has in the history of humanity.

Is view of reality important? From an evolutionary point of view the only important thing is survival. It's doubtful or science has done a good job in that respect. Sure, it helped expand the human population hugely, but at the same time it has brought us closer to destruction then ever. Just look at the pollution, weapons of mass destruction etc. Of course this is a complete new debate and we've to see how it plays out. Science may very well help in long term survival, perhaps even help pull together entire humanity but for now it's a risky proposition. 

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

Don't you see the irony here? How on earth do you know that you're looking at things objectively and reasonably???

 

This is precisely the kind of thinking that makes solutions to any problems literally impossible. Whenever we start thinking that all ideas are equally valid, we lose the ability to make good judgements. The alternative to my way of thinking is one in which we can be certain of nothing, and thus shouldn't even bother trying to reason with anyone. Do I think I am right about certain things? Yes. Of course I am biased, but I believe that it is possible to be more or less reasonable. I guess I should give up on communication, since all opinions are equally valid. Here we are right back to where we started. It seems I've stumbled on to something that is more serious than I thought. Relativism really is king in the west.

 

I think the problem is that you think I am arrogant, and now my ability to convince anyone of anything is gone, no matter what I say.

 

 

Extremely unlikely to be true. Because if the Enlightenment never happened, you wouldn't think the way you do today

 

You are taking this out of context.

[Guest realmayo]

I don't think you're arrogant, that doesn't come across elsewhere.

 

But in that instance you suggested that you can access objective truth and most Chinese people can't. That's a type of arrogant thinking I'm certainly guilty of too now and again, everyone is, and I'm sure you didn't mean it in that black-and-white way. But I pointed it out because it came up in the middle of a discussion about the too-PC crew being so sure it's right that alternative points of view are suppressed.

 

As for too much relativism: no, I'm saying that if you act in a way which you're sure is correct, there might be some people -- no matter how hard you reason and how long they try to understand you -- who will think that you're wrong. Because people are different. We're not all the same. That's another modern myth.

[Guest realmayo]

In fact you could say that general thinking in China is very comfortable with the idea that people from different backgrounds will struggle to understand each other. But the West likes to think otherwise.

 

It's that moment when you decide: yes you're a good friend and I think you're smart, broad-minded, well-educated, kind-hearted, and so on, but you're also Chinese so let's avoid discussing Tibet any more because we'll just irritate each other.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

Is view of reality important? From an evolutionary point of view the only important thing is survival.

 

I mean, I understand your point, but would you really want to, say, go back to 17th century technology and thinking? It's a valid idea if you value that kind of society, but most people like the modern age.