I was recently invited to put my opinion down on rabble.ca, a national progressive political website. In true VancouverManifesto style I have been prohibited to post due to my language being interpreted as racist, amongst other things.
When did we become SO hypersensitive and SO politically correct? Political correctness is just an attempt to "make pretty" real issues. Political correctness is an ideology in itself- an assumption that you are doing justice and correcting wrongs by stepping around the raw words that have been used in a derogatory way in the past towards marginalized groups. Pretending that constructions of race, gender and other ideologies do not exist do not do justice to those who were/are marginalized- it conceals the fact that racISM and sexISM DO exist. Not recognizing that there is difference and that people perceive eachother with such difference (whether we like it or not) also does not do justice.
PC is just a way to "make us all equal". I do believe in equality in humanity, that every person should be treated with equal respect. But I also believe that history has not treated us in such a way. "There is nothing so unequal as treating unequal people equally." PC terms attempt to erase that groups have been terribly wronged and pretend that we all just need to clean the slate and start off fresh. Wrong. We need to recognize that there IS imbalance, history has CREATED inequity, and we need to FACE it head on and redress what we have done.
Anyways, that rant was bit beyond the scope of what I take issue with, but I am unhappy that people are so touchy and I find it offensive that people are SUCH on the defensive that they assume the worst.
Go ahead and see for yourself:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=002026
Good lord. White hetero males can't catch a break. It's good that I am none of the above...
you can disagree with me, but don't censor me.
Thursday, 12 June 2008
Get over your male whiteness: On political correctness
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
TheVancouverManifesto by Samantha Orwell is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://thevancouvermanifesto.blogspot.com/2007/12/about-this-blog.html.
8 Manifestos:
Welcome to the wonderful world of Babble!
It used to be a bit better than that, but these days it seems like a discussion either dies out, or goes off the rails after one or more people jump on a particular comment, with nothing in between. That's one reason I've taken a break from posting there -- I like debates that involve tension between two ostensibly progressive positions and that test people's assumptions, but either people shy away from such topics or they degenerate into polarized flame wars.
Most people in the discussion didn't seem to find your comment all that objectionable (one simply overlooked it, and at least a couple replied to the substance of what you were saying). But it just took one hypersensitive and overwrought hall monitor and one person piling on.
That being said, I'm not sure I agree with the content of the particular statement that got you in hot water (I largely agree with the other points you make). I've heard others make the same argument, but I don't see Sullivan's Chinese supporters moving to Louie simply because he's Chinese.
My understanding is that Louie doesn't speak Mandarin fluently (unlike Sullivan), and he's derogatorily been called a "Banana" by some, a term that I detest but that I assume has some power or people wouldn't use it.
And would right-wing political organizers support a trade unionist with NDP ties simply because he's the same race as them? Can you give an example of where Chinese support for a candidate seems to have been based on relatively apolitical considerations (e.g., the same person supporting both a right-wing Chinese candidate and a left-wing one at various points or the same point in time)?
Also, as Ursa Minor noted, the deadline for signing up Vision members to vote at this week's meeting is past, so it's too late for en masse membership signups. Although I suspect that some Vision members may be breaking the party's rules by joining both it and the NPA to hedge their bets, which would support your argument. I don't have any proof -- it's more the sheer numbers of new Vision members that leads me to suspect that.
I dunno, VM. I mean, you were pushing their buttons a bit. You can't deny that. But yeah, rabble is not really a place for cussing humour in their politics. Maybe we ought to start our own version of babble where we can not worry about that PC crap.
it's also funny they thought you were a dude.
If I wanted to get PC-anal Iwould have jumped on a lot of crap they did. For example, using the lord's name in vain(which I will not pretend that I care about), cussing me out in an ironic manner calling me a big manly bully, ASSuming that i was white and male, etc.
And what gets me is that few of them even attempted to COMMENT on the substance of what i was trying to say or have the courtesy to attempt to deconstruct why I would say the things I say in such a manner.
re voting for Louie soley based on his Chineseness. Yeah, fair enough. But there are a lot of non-enlgish speaking people and/or many chinese who are not well versed in politics- when they see a chinese name on that ballot they will go for it.
The community is tight. I think the only tighter community than ethnic communities are business communities.
"banana" is a back handed compliment of sorts for louie. I dunno, on one hand he speaks to a lot of CBCs who are non chinese speaking chinese people trying to struggle with their own ethnicities and their own non-whiteness. on the other hand the older generation might damn him as the the dentist on Seinfeld who wants to be a Jew for the jokes.
I tend to think Louie is a tool of sorts who can't stand up straight without a good team behind him. I haveg seen crap from him trhoughout council meetings, albeit i've only been to a few (mostly ecodensity ones but I could condemn a lot of other councillors of doing nothing as well.
I'm voting Ladner. period.
At least I know what he stands for even if it isn't a very progressive platform. IO'd vote Cadman if he ran, but to be honest I'm terrified of splitting the vote and having Vision in. Honestly, I DO believe Ladner is the lesser of two evils no matter WHO Vision votes in.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about Ladner. Yes, we know what he stands for - everything that the NPA's done over the last three years. (I'll assume for present purposes that his reversal on the Burrard Bridge bike lane trial is "what he stands for," as opposed to his original vote in favour of the trial. Who knows, really.)
But we can likewise measure Louie and Vision on the basis of the Vision councillors' voting record over the last three years. That includes both NPA motions that they voted against, and their own motions, most of which were defeated or tabled by the NPA. We're not talking about an unknown quantity here.
Robertson is maybe a bit harder to pin down, but he's taken specific positions on topics like the Southeast False Creek affordable housing component and placing a "speculator's tax" on vacant condos. De Genova's another story, but if he wins I'll buy a hat so I can eat it.
And for good or for ill, Vision is basically the civic NDP. There's a few federal Liberals, but they're pretty much on the margins. Are you saying that you'd prefer to vote for someone to the left of the civic NDP (like Cadman), but that if that's not a viable choice, you'll vote for the candidate who's to the right of them? It seems a bit like choosing between Nader or McCain because you don't trust Obama (with the admitted difference that the mayor of Vancouver doesn't have nukes).
Choosing between Nader and McCain makes sense, as does Cadman vs. Ladner. The middle road is by definition the road filled with the most lies in order to attract votes. Paul Martin and Gordon Campbell are prime examples. At least Harper and Layton (read: Cadman and Ladner) are upfront with their politics.
Ladner says he supports CivilCity. He doesn't say "I'll consider it after careful review". So you know what you get when you vote for or against him.
Robertson is much more obtuse. I'm starting to think that Robertson is our local Ignatieff.
I just finished reading the thread at Rabble and I have to say that I did find your statements to be offensive. I'm not sure if I would have called them racist but as I'll explain that is beside the point.
You seem to have this idea that intent should be the overruling characteristic use to judge the appropriateness of your words. Sorry, that is not true, never has been and never will be. Your words were indeed offensive because the target audience perceived them to be and it is perception that rules king in communication. As a speaker, you do not get to decide how your audience will perceive his words. You can only choose and craft your words as to entice in your audience the perception that you desire. Perception is a personal thing, shaped by a one's history, culture and view of the world, instilled and ingrained over long periods of time. It is not something that can be changed by intimidation, or force.
Take, for example, the custom of belching at the dinner table, a sign in some culture of appreciation of a meal well received, and yet in other cultures it is a sign of complete and utter disrespect for your fellow dinners. It would be ridiculous for abelcher to sit down to a meal at a table of non-belchers and become hostile when his fellow dinners ask him to refrain from the practise at their table. It would be as equally ridiculous for a non-belcher to sit at a table of belchers and insist that they all refrain as well.
Your first mistake in that thread was not knowing your audience and adapting to the mores of the group. Context is a major component of perception. Yet, the net is huge and it is unreasonable to expect that you should know the culture of every online forum you visit. However, once it became clear that your words were out of context (i.e. in your context and out of theirs) you should have shown some manners and apologized for the unintended offence. That was your second mistake. But beyond these first two, your biggest and unforgivable mistake was your lack of humility which underlined your aggressive self-centered response.
You are not God. You do not get to decide how others should think. If you had apologized and then tried to educate the thread on your views, thus giving people the opportunity to reformulate their perception of your words, you might have received a completely different response. Instead you went on a tirade insinuating that any perception other than the one you decreed correct was evidence of narrow-minded or deluded thinking. It must be nice to be infallible, all knowing and all judging.
What a shameful display. You really should go back to that thread an apologize.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購
免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛
A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX
情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,色情網站,免費AV,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,成人影片,情色網
情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,臺灣情色網,色情,情色電影,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,麗的色遊戲,情色論壇,色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片
av,情趣用品,a片,成人電影,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室,美女交友,成人光碟
情趣用品.A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,色情遊戲,色情網站,聊天室,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,免費A片,日本a片,a片下載,線上a片,av女優,av,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,成人網站,自拍,尋夢園聊天室
Post a Comment