[btilly]

First, I would like to recommend http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html as background for what I object to about political correctness.

Political correctness pushes the idea that the whole world should be trying to create a safe space for those who have had any kind of past challenge. There is a time and place for safe spaces. However the act of encouraging people to figure out what problems they can complain about, then coddling them, makes people more fragile. This has long-lasting negative implications for their mental health.

For example https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-mentally-strong... explains what has actually been observed in children whose parents tended too closely to their perceived needs. Similarly therapists have found that encouraging people with PTSD to avoid any reminder of their past trauma actually makes the trauma worse. Instead it is more effective to desensitize them with controlled exposure to the trauma to teach them to be able to handle it.

This gives us some idea of how to create mental health. What are we doing instead? Well, we are teaching a whole generation that the world needs to take care of them due to a variety of past misdeeds. In the process we teach them to be sensitive to things that otherwise would not have bothered them very much. We then encourage them to demand that they not encounter reminders of what they don't like, and try to make the whole world a "safe space" for them. This is a recipe for systemically creating PTSD among people who otherwise would not develop it. Thereby creating the exact condition that we are trying to help. And, having created it, we have motivation to do more of the same so that more people become fragile.

I know, I know. This isn't a popular point of view. It suggests that a large portion of the SJW agenda is backwards. However I believe, and there is evidence from psychology to back me up, that it is right. We should not go overboard to protect people from encountering speech and ideas that they don't like. We should instead make people resilient to that experience. Both for their mental health, and so that they learn critical thinking.

[spacekitcat]

In my country, "Political Correctness" is a dog whistle used by Daily Mail readers. It doesn't mean anything. I don't shape my thinking by what some talking head thinks.

Why do you think I asked for a concrete example? I notice that you didn't provide one either.

[btilly]

Concrete examples of political correctness gone bad.

Censoring the OP for calling someone else wrong. (When the person called wrong is actually a friend and didn't object.)

Cisco firing employees for saying, "All lives matter."

Maya Forstater being fired for expressing the opinion that while she used people's preferred pronouns, she thought of trans people as their original gender if they still had their real genitalia.

Emmanuel Cafferty (a Mexican American) being fired for an alleged white supremacist hand gesture that he had never even HEARD of as a white supremacist hand gesture. (Also did I mention that he's not even white?)

Ongoing persecution of academics who dare research trans issues from any perspective that trans activists do not approve of. See https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/16/academics-ar... for more on that.

Is that enough examples for you?

[spacekitcat]

I’m trans and you are twisting quite a few of those, but you don’t exist from this point on as far as I’m concerned. I won’t debate my my right to be with anyone, least of all you.

[btilly]

Wonderful. You don't believe that people have the right to have opinions that you dislike. And don't see that as a problem.

Possibly because you expect people whose opinions you dislike to treat you like you would treat them if positions were reversed.

I don't mind being dead to you. But I don't want you, or people like you, to be in a position to make decisions about what I can say. Nor do I particularly want to be in a position to decide what you can say. What I want is called "freedom of speech".

As the old saying goes, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

However when you open up the door to stopping other people from speaking, you have opened up the door to them stopping you from speaking. Are you sure that all of your opinions agree with that majority? Really? You think nothing that others might find controversial? If so, that's weird. And good luck if you ever change your mind about anything important.

[spacekitcat]

The Maya Forstater case isn't as you presented it. Why did you misrepresent it? Was it an innocent mistake or was it deliberate? She got sacked for a sustained campaign of harassment.

If you don't believe me (and it would therefore be an innocent mistake), you can read the court ruling here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD...

If you've misrepresented this one, why would I trust any of your other examples?

[btilly]

I was doing a quick search and believed someone else's representation of the case. But let's look at the case.

A woman in question has a reasonably common belief that offends you and I think is not in accord with the facts. She is open about her belief, but also has apparently made an attempt to be polite in personal interactions with others. (See paragraph 41 for example.)

Despite the ruling coming down against her, I read this and think that she has a right to have and express that opinion. That when we suppress the expression of opinions like this, they don't go away. Instead they become stronger.

Some of her opinions I agree with, and some not.

Here is an example where I disagree. I don't think that female only spaces should exclude transwomen. I also don't think that my opinion on that should matter because such spaces should exclude me. However based on the fact that most women do not agree with her, they such spaces will include them. Hooray. She is free to make her own space that excludes though, and anyone who wants can join her. That's called free association.

Here is an example where I agree with her. People born male have a significant biological advantage in many sports. This is historically the reason why we separated men and women for sports such as tennis and running. As a result, trans and intersex women have a significant advantage in the same sports. See Caster Semenya for a famous example. I do not think it is at all unreasonable to ban people who retain that advantage from participating as women in such sports.

Now let's compare her belief to one that is more obviously protected.

I'm an atheist and believe in science. I have worked with fundamentalist Christians who honestly believe that the world is 6000 years old, and that I'm going to Hell. And have told me such in as many words. As you can guess, I didn't enjoy it. But we were able to maintain cordial relations in the workplace, and I wouldn't ask them to be fired for expressing an opinion that they honestly held. Despite my opinions about their opinion.

As I said, I'm for free speech. Whether or not people agree with me, or I with them.