General

No. We're not there yet imo. I think we're very close to slipping backwards wow a bit actually.

There's a difference between something being recognized as the politically correct side of things by some people and actually having our society as a whole take that information in and consider it with the level of attention appropriate to its usage and use it to move towards a better future.

Part of the world that I want to create is one where people that are still "assholes", that are marginalized by overbearing PC culture, that are at-risk for hate ideology predation, etc. get the support and resources that they need to make their own informed choices and be who they would without overlays of abusive ideology.

Also, "isn't that the current world" is really only speaking about very general first-world conditions. I am goddamn lucky to live in America, and I recognize that, even if I've faced hate still. There are places in Africa where things like female genital mutilation and corrective rape are far more widespread than they would be under more reasonable conditions. There are places in the Middle East where queer people are executed. Russia still openly discriminates against non-heteronormative people. There are still massive problems for queer people out there.

Yeah I could see that. What do you think is causing that?


Prolly lizards. Or people who refuse to relinquish control.

Maybe just the latter.

I mean, it depends on what "differences" you're talking about. In the US, for example, while there are a lot of people that are accepting of the LGBTQ+ community and some states have tried to protect their rights, there's an entire political party built right now on denying that. Women still get harassed pretty routinely in fields typically considered "for boys/men" like sports or nerd things like gaming, Star Wars, or comics. And I mean, I've literally been harassed in my own town for choosing to wear a mask at the gas pump during a pandemic "like a pussy." So... I dunno... yeah, there are always gonna be "some assholes." But depending on what differences you're talking about, there are a *lot* of those assholes. And for some (like transgender folks), it's bigger than just "some assholes." An entire political party has made openly denying your identity a central component of their platform. Even if you're gay, that same party still wants to stop you from marrying who you love, and if they can't do that, they want to stop you from starting a family if you want. So... yeah, in many, many ways things are definitely better than, say, 100 years, or even 20 years ago. But for some, they're identities and personalities are constantly under barrage.




I get that, and mostly agree, but I innately hold a lot of skepticism towards the very notion of "overbearing PC culture," because more often than not, we're talking about majority groups feeling attacked that they can't just dehumanize minority groups without being criticized anymore. In the age of the internet and FOX News, it's pretty clear that "outrage culture" is a big problem across the spectrum, and that's certainly something to be concerned about. But a lot of "PC culture" complaints stem from manufactured controversies that really aren't a big deal, but get turned into it because the majority group wants to justify their own persecution complex.

Like the overwhelming majority of trans folks are not going to "cancel" you for misgendering them one time. Or even a few times if you show a good-faith effort to not do that. But that's different than, say, refusing to properly gender them because you just refuse to respect their gender or their identity and individual personhood. And I'm just wary of the people complaining about "PC culture" because more often than not, those are the types of things we see. It's that second situation, but people acting like it's the first to make it seem soooo unreasonable. (Or like, other non-controversies that have been used to complain about "PC culture" like the Dr. Seuss stuff.)

@ObConWorld:
AFMCW:

I would like to know how to arrange that a bigoted minority within some race* would be pitied and looked down upon by a non-bigoted majority within that same race*, without actually having their rights infringed.

In my builtworlds I’ll have certain industries in which enterprises consisting of members of several races* will just naturally do better than those that exclude members of certain races*. To that extent a kind of unavoidable “de facto discrimination” against the bigots will be enforced by the bigots against themselves. I don’t expect any further discrimination will be necessary.

*Any other group may be used instead of “race” here.

Is it OK for me to ask about that here?
Does anyone think our real world is trending that way?

I do as well. This phrase was a small technical concession and does not reflect a sophisticated or structurally important point in my overall viewpoint.

@Riven:
You said:


Yes! Also the same way an extended-family group might do better than an equally numerous squad of Marines in certain situations.
(RL Details available upon request!)

I’m hoping to make it “canon” that each race has a non-negligible but definitely-minority fraction of its members who are bigoted against each other race, and the majority find them illogical. Bigots against one other race will handicap themselves; bigots against every other race will actively impoverish themselves.
How can I make that logical? Should I imagine the bigots going on the air and complaining they’re being discriminated against by the majority, and demanding some kind of reparations to make up for the consequences of their bigotry?

And am I hijacking this thread to ask this here?

I have no issue with your posts in particular, as this thread has already digressed from the personal angle that I approached it from. I would only ask that your conversation be moved if the argument about culture/politics was also moved.

"I think we're very close to slipping backwards wow a bit actually."

Yeah I could see that. What do you think is causing that?

I think wrongthink/echo chambers/cancel culture over small insignificant things that happened 10 years ago - are three problematic elements of modern society.

People aren't perfect. They need to be allowed to grow and improve at their own pace. They need to be able to make mistakes and bad moves and learn from them. They need to improve how they think, not WHAT they think.

Cancel culture is being gamed by large corporations and other world powers so that everyone is trained into being a wallflower without their own visible personality. The visible nails being hammered down so that everything becomes uniform and stale.

No. The phrase "cancel culture" is itself bullshit. The same groups complaining about it now were FINE with boycotts that they agreed with.

I think people need to be held accountable. I think apologies need to be real. I think we can have fucked up AND move on while still acknowledging what we did.

I lied to my wife about drinking. I deserve to never forget that. I also deserve to live past it and not be held down by it since I both apologized and corrected my behavior.

Has anyone who has been 'canceled' who also made a big point to own up to what they did STILL been punished for it? Not as far as I can see. The only folx still on the stretcher are the ones who never stopped being butts about things.

*All of the above is my opinion and I'm in a bitchy mood so apologies if the tone sucks*

@Riven:
You wrote:

1 thanks for splitting!
2 why are you apologizing?

I’m the one who owed CZM an apology, and he accepted it and forgave me.
At least that’s what I thought!
(@CZM: am I wrong?)

We all owe you thanks for splitting the thread!

[@]IKM,Tek:[/@]
As far as I can tell you’re (probably) both (almost totally) right!