(Humor and Satire) Political correctness is unsexy - it's biology

I've never heard of that - any links? That sounds way out there to me.

In addition... DNA is a strange thing...


A Human and a Pig are closer related to each other DNA wise, than the African Elephant is to the Indian Elephant

__________________

Ok, if a Scandinavian baby was abducted and taken to China.? For one, the light skin and tall height might have quite an effect.

As for DNA, the difference is so little, even between humans and monkeys. Wouldn't you agree environment is a more stronger indication?

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

There are probably a ton of things we aren't considering. I think the Earth is so old, that even with all the research, we'll never know it all. I wonder if in 20 years, or 200 years, the things we think now are true become debunked?

Good point.


I've noticed something as well. Everything I learned at school... means nothing these days.
Especially science classes.


I've taught myself more since leaving school than I ever learned at school, simply because everything I was taught means nothing anymore.

I didn't learn anything I've learned from school that's for sure. That's why I'm glad I live in the internet age - it allows for the average Joe to learn things from the privacy of his computer which he'd never have been able to learn 20 years ago outside of a biologist convention.

I've learned more in individual weekends than in 4 years of High school.

Generalizations are a problem if applied literally in all situations; the purpose of them is a starting point to go from - just like how I compared it to the concrete foundation for a skyscraper.

If you don't use it as a starting point though, then you're left with nothing to go on other than 'trial and error'. The problem is when people are just afraid to take a stand on anything out of fear of 'overgeneralizing'.

For example, if a person wanted to improve their diet but had no knowledge of nutrition - they would need someone to provide them a general reference point. If people only told them "everyone is different, just eat whatever you want" then they'd have nothing to go on if they wanted to self improve. So a person might "generalize" by saying don't eat too much junk food - sure that might offend someone who likes eating junk food all the time (even if it's unhealthy) but it's a necessary step in the right direction for people who actually want to improve - rather than just "do whatever they want" without any concern for the results.

Sure the opposite extreme - where a person is so OCD about never eating junk food that they stress themselves (and others) out about it isn't good either, but if anything I think the former is the problem - I just use the failed auditions on American Idol who got up on stage and embarassed themselves; must likely they never had anyone tell them how to actually sing well - they just had friends and family constantly tell them "they were great" instead of telling them how to actually be great, and the result wasn't pretty.

In school, I remember Columbus discovered America, that's not said much anymore --- but... that's only based on the 12 young adults I've asked.

I agree a generalization as a start is fine... I think one has to really think deep, but also hear as many different opinions as possible. There might be things people say we never considered, thus allowing ourselves to wonder how we feel, adn dissect. I also like conversations on message boards, as people face to face tend (generalization, ha) to not say what's on there minds as much.

Attachments

 

What I hate most about PC is that sometimes it's so counterproductive. People doing the right things for the wrong reasons to feel good for ten minutes - feeding their neuroses.

In the 60's, "black" was a bad word to use, Negro was used (never today) and most groups (not individuals) later asked to be called African-Americans. And to bring up satire, I remember reading how Robert Kennedy was pressured in the race-relations, so he talked to Dick Gregory and Lena Horne to find out how the average black person lived

Now it's back to black.... What a waste of time. As if this is going to solve problems. It's nice to be respectful, but altering the system is more beneficial. Speaking of Dick Gregory, he used to say "I'm black, but I'm an individual too" and then changed that. I rather be classified as a fan of Stanley Kubrick than a white male (no one is white, and I'm pretty tan)..

I agree with most of the feminine mystique, but I saw it becoming a marketing tool and a political weapon. In fact, last year I went to visit an old sociology professor, and sat in the same class I took 14 years ago to see what changed. In 2000, he referred to himself as a Socialist, and in that class, he said he was a liberal, believed in slow change. I guess I'm somewhere in between.

After class in his office we usually would sit for hours and talk. He had a shirt that read, "This is what a feminist looks like" and I said, "What's wrong with being a humanist? and didn't say anything, just looked at me, knowing he probably believe it, but might have felt pressured, since other faculty wore it. If he didn't he might think he was anti-woman.

Speaking of generalizations, I took his first class at the age of 18. As he walked in, he was a real big guy, white hair and beard, and spoke with a Southern accent, and thought to myself, "probably another conservative" and I was wrong.

The problem with PCism and prudery is that it focuses mainly on the "words" used - but according to science human communication is 90% body language and voice, only 10% actual words - in other words "how its said", rather than "what is said". Language is a much more recent evolutionary invention than body language anyway - the latter is truly the universal language.

Jeremy Clarkson said something quite cutting about Health And Safety and PC Gone Mad in Top Gear.


There was a new, cutting edge car that was developed, can't remember what it was... but it was halted in its production because of H&S and PC. Something to do with emissions and power, or something.


He said that I in the millions of years of Human evolution, Human productiveness, Human endeavours etc... this is the first time we have ever gone backwards.
All because of PC.

It has little content or meaning. It's probably for people who don't want to commit to real change by getting into the trenches, so they spend their time saying what's offensive or not to make them feel worthy, as if they helped the "cause" of humanity. I think action isn't revered as much, since so much communication nowadays is text, phone, internet, etc.

So your original statement that political porrectness is making us "unsexy" is basically bullsh*t then right?

You're saying body language is what makes people attractive and now you're saying political correctness is about words instead of body language (the most important part of communication).

Logically, attractiveness now has, according to your way of thinking, nothing to do anymore with political correctness or vice-versa, which makes the premise of this thread completely invalid.

Wouldn't you agree?


By the way, I'm not a defender of pure political correctness. I'm just pointing out that it was "attacked" in a very poor way in this thread.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

Valid point I was making about that is that becoming too easily offended over things (which is what I consider a PC mindset to be) increases cortisol, too much of which lowers testosterone (which helps promote dominant male behavior).

So the OP was satirical and not meant to be taken seriously - but it had a valid point - it wasn't something I just pulled out of my ass.

I'm sure your very lovely turn of phrase would be very attractive amongst the majority of 'women' of whom you know so much.

I thought I was pretty genteel about it - but anyway it sounds like you came here to comment just because you were "annoyed" by an unrelated opinion I had in the 50 Shades of Grey thread - but out of the millions of women who watched the film, the majority of them did not have as negative an opinion on the film as you do - so why you think your personal annoyances speaks for "all women" is beyond me, and strikes me as pretentious. Plenty of women (like the other ones in this thread) would find that you're the one being too easily bothered by others' views than the other way around.

You even put 'women' in quotes as though suggesting that any woman who disagrees with you 'isn't a real woman' - aka a No True Scotsman fallacy.

When they told women to join a group to become an individual, well, need I say more. That's conformity... It rids their individuality.

"Women who demand their equality renounce their superiority" - Bertrand Russell

I'm not big on political groups based off of a simple trait such as sex, race, sexuality, etc rather than personal accomplishements - I think it leads to xenophobia and hive-mind like mentalities and just creates further division.

That's not actually true. Bisexuals are attracted to both men and women, whereas those who identify as pansexual often subscribe to the idea that people aren't just male or female.

__________________

Terms used in the "LGBT" community pretty much exclusively don't hold meaning in discussions about actual science.

Plus the idea that people aren't just male/female isn't biologically correct. According to science the people you describe are bisexual. So bringing up a neologism like that in a scientific discussion doesn't work.

I'm also just curious how you'd argue someone that homosexuality is normal, if you 'don't trust the APA' - since without psychology we'd probably still consider it an "abomination unto God' like Islamic countries do.