The evils of political correctness.

[Speakpigeon]

The only way to improve anything is to dare to talk about it honestly. Avoiding to offend is avoiding to be honest.

And this is perfectly good and PC is about shaming people if and when you think they are misrepresenting facts about already vulnerable groups.

Only you've decided it's good enough to throw away the baby with the bath water by equating all PC people to those PC people who do display an outrageous attitude.

Trevor Phillips is correct and made an articulate and convincing case.

You, on the other hand, based on what you are able to say, are just wrong.


What Trevor Phillips also does, incidentally, is to show you are wrong. He has successfully demonstrated that you can say that Jews in Britain are overrepresented among the rich and powerful without being fined or put in jail and that's because it is true. Who is going to sue him for speaking the truth? And then you have people who stop themselves from speaking the truth and these are just idiots and no PC-minded people can be held responsible for the fact that there are idiots. And then you have people who are shamed in not telling lies and that's perfectly good too and that's an achievement of political correctness. What Phillips is saying is that PC is a blunt instrument that it may be best not to use institutionally. He doesn't want to say that the reason for that is that many public officers are just not smart enough for the job they do, which is the real reason that they fail their mission. He doesn't want to say that because he doesn't have a solution to that problem because the solution would be to recruit smarter people and necessarily to spend more money on the whole thing and he knows we're no going to agree to do that. Hypocrisy all around.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

The only way to improve anything is to dare to talk about it honestly. Avoiding to offend is avoiding to be honest.

And this is perfectly good and PC is about shaming people if and when you think they are misrepresenting facts about already vulnerable groups.

Pointing out somebody's mistake isn't shaming them? Shaming somebody is way more extreme IMHO

Only you've decided it's good enough to throw away the baby with the bath water by equating all PC people to those PC people who do display an outrageous attitude.

But that's where we're at now. We're getting a world where sensible people are uncomfortable about being labelled politically correct.

South Park's PC-principal isn't a character that sprung out of thin air. That character is a comment on something that's actually going on in our society.

Trevor Phillips is correct and made an articulate and convincing case.

You, on the other hand, based on what you are able to say, are just wrong.

He makes the case that for fear of appearing racist lots of people refrain from criticising non-whites when they should. How am I now saying that same thing?

What Trevor Phillips also does, incidentally, is to show you are wrong. He has successfully demonstrated that you can say that Jews in Britain are overrepresented among the rich and powerful without being fined or put in jail and that's because it is true. Who is going to sue him for speaking the truth? And then you have people who stop themselves from speaking the truth and these are just idiots and no PC-minded people can be held responsible for the fact that there are idiots. And then you have people who are shamed in not telling lies and that's perfectly good too and that's an achievement of political correctness. What Phillips is saying is that PC is a blunt instrument that it may be best not to use institutionally. He doesn't want to say that the reason for that is that many public officers are just not smart enough for the job they do, which is the real reason that they fail their mission. He doesn't want to say that because he doesn't have a solution to that problem because the solution would be to recruit smarter people and necessarily to spend more money on the whole thing and he knows we're no going to agree to do that. Hypocrisy all around.
EB

What?

 

[Speakpigeon]

PC is not about forcibly stopping people from making prejudiced or discriminatory declarations. It's about shaming them, and not for being offensive but for contributing to the misery of other people for no good reason.

We're a social species. Public shaming is an extremely powerful tool of retribution. Not long ago I heard a radio documentary about big scandals in the Swedish press. It was anything from gaffes to embezzlement accusations. They interviewed the targets of these 10 - 20 years on. They all reported on long depressions and bizarre and extreme long term mental problems. They all got powerful physical reactions to the extreme levels of stress.

I don't think we should downplay the damage of public shaming.

Yes but this isn't saying that PC is the problem. This is saying that some people who use PC are wrong. When it's done properly and for a good reason, say somebody like Trump says all Mexicans are rapists, then I think it's right and proper to try and shame him. He might not stop, they usually don't, but he's made out as a shameful example and as you say, we're a social species. And if a racist does get depressed for being shamed for being a racist, well, that's too bad but he gets to take his own poison.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

We're a social species. Public shaming is an extremely powerful tool of retribution. Not long ago I heard a radio documentary about big scandals in the Swedish press. It was anything from gaffes to embezzlement accusations. They interviewed the targets of these 10 - 20 years on. They all reported on long depressions and bizarre and extreme long term mental problems. They all got powerful physical reactions to the extreme levels of stress.

I don't think we should downplay the damage of public shaming.

Yes but this isn't saying that PC is the problem. This is saying that some people who use PC are wrong. When it's done properly and for a good reason, say somebody like Trump says all Mexicans are rapists, then I think it's right and proper to try and shame him. He might not stop, they usually don't, but he's made out as a shameful example and as you say, we're a social species. And if a racist does get depressed for being shamed for being a racist, well, that's too bad but he gets to take his own poison.
EB

What's wrong about just calmly saying to a person like that that you disagree? And offer your arguments... if he's interested. Do you want him to stop saying that all Mexicans are rapists, or do you want him to stop thinking that all Mexicans are rapists? Do you want the racists to stop saying racist things, or do you want him to stop being racist.

What's the goal of shaming him? How could it possibly make the world a better place if we're constantly on the prowl for people to say dumb shit so we can get to destroy their lives over it?

What's wrong with people just having a civilised conversation where they disagree? Being a racist is ok. It's a belief. We can't control what we believe. It's an unfortunate belief. But I don't think we will get fewer racists by terrorising them through social sanctions when they express themselves. If anything that will just make them insular and prevent us from talking them out of it. Better to let them say their thing IMHO.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And this is perfectly good and PC is about shaming people if and when you think they are misrepresenting facts about already vulnerable groups.

Pointing out somebody's mistake isn't shaming them? Shaming somebody is way more extreme IMHO

Shaming doesn't have to be brutal or extreme. It's really saying that misrepresenting other people may have seriously harmful consequences for them and that it is your responsibility if it comes to that. You can't just babysit people who pay no attention to the welfare of other people. People have to face their social responsibilities. We are a social species.

Only you've decided it's good enough to throw away the baby with the bath water by equating all PC people to those PC people who do display an outrageous attitude.

But that's where we're at now. We're getting a world where sensible people are uncomfortable about being labelled politically correct.

South Park's PC-principal isn't a character that sprung out of thin air. That character is a comment on something that's actually going on in our society.

I'm not sure what the argument is. That some PC people are stupid? You're welcome.

Trevor Phillips is correct and made an articulate and convincing case.

You, on the other hand, based on what you are able to say, are just wrong.

He makes the case that for fear of appearing racist lots of people refrain from criticising non-whites when they should. How am I now saying that same thing?

Because he is pointing at public officers not smart enough to do their mission although without saying explicitly so. He is actually saying people get the wrong message (around 00:35:00). If you're being told to do X and you understand you are being told to do Y then it's your fault. Many people are just not smart enough for the job they do. He realised this and he wants to send a warning. PC is too blunt an instrument given the kind of public officers we've got. Saying as you do it's the fault of PC is just misrepresenting the issue. He is right that there is a problem. You are wrong in saying it's caused by PC. And he demonstrates how you should do it if you're smart enough by saying the truth that Jews are overrepresented among the rich and powerful without being fined or sent to jail. If he can speak the truth about minorities so should public officers. If they fail to do that it's because they are not smart enough and fail to understand what they should do when faced with difficult cases. He can't say that so instead he does the next best thing which is to admit PC has bad side effects. Oh, yeah, it's a blunt instrument. What he can't guaranty is that refraining from PC will not have vastly more harmful effects. Well, we just don't know but the actual side effects of PC are nothing compared to the ills of discrimination we've seen in the past.

What Trevor Phillips also does, incidentally, is to show you are wrong. He has successfully demonstrated that you can say that Jews in Britain are overrepresented among the rich and powerful without being fined or put in jail and that's because it is true. Who is going to sue him for speaking the truth? And then you have people who stop themselves from speaking the truth and these are just idiots and no PC-minded people can be held responsible for the fact that there are idiots. And then you have people who are shamed in not telling lies and that's perfectly good too and that's an achievement of political correctness. What Phillips is saying is that PC is a blunt instrument that it may be best not to use institutionally. He doesn't want to say that the reason for that is that many public officers are just not smart enough for the job they do, which is the real reason that they fail their mission. He doesn't want to say that because he doesn't have a solution to that problem because the solution would be to recruit smarter people and necessarily to spend more money on the whole thing and he knows we're no going to agree to do that. Hypocrisy all around.
EB

What?

I can do that too. Could you be a little bit more articulate?
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Pointing out somebody's mistake isn't shaming them? Shaming somebody is way more extreme IMHO

Shaming doesn't have to be brutal or extreme. It's really saying that misrepresenting other people may have seriously harmful consequences for them and that it is your responsibility if it comes to that. You can't just babysit people who pay no attention to the welfare of other people. People have to face their social responsibilities. We are a social species.

I think it does. If it's not brutal and extreme then where's the shame? Shaming has to make them feel very bad. Unless they do, they aren't feeling shame. Fear of shame is an extremely powerful tool for controlling people.

South Park's PC-principal isn't a character that sprung out of thin air. That character is a comment on something that's actually going on in our society.

I'm not sure what the argument is. That some PC people are stupid? You're welcome.

I think South Park's PC-principal distils what's wrong with PC. He isn't politically correct at all. He just says politically correct things. He in in fact the most vile stereotypical bullying jock. But because he says all the right (PC) words he can behave awfully. He treats being PC as a game, where it's about scoring points saying the most PC thing. To him being PC is essentially a social competition.

PC principal is also white, athletic, middle-class and successful. As is their crew. In every scene with them they first say something politically correct and then go onto hitting on some white young bimbo they want to bang.

In the world of PC-principal non-majority non-normative people aren't any more included than they were with the old principal. It's all just talk. It's an act. PC-principal and his crew exclude the hell of out people, but couch the exclusion in pretty PC phrases.

Oh, yeah, it's a blunt instrument. What he can't guaranty is that refraining from PC will not have vastly more harmful effects. Well, we just don't know but the actual side effects of PC are nothing compared to the ills of discrimination we've seen in the past.

It's a false dichotomy. The choices aren't tyranny of the majority or PC tyranny. Why any tyranny at all? Why not just let people get on with it without judging? Perhaps somebody telling off a black person for doing something is racist. Perhaps it was justified. Let's not make any assumptions in advance.

 

[untermensche]

So in your world a person SHOULD offend people when they can easily avoid it?

I say they should not.

And the world will be better for it. Less people offended.

I want people to be honest. If that offends. So be it.

The opposite of not offending somebody is not dishonesty.

It is decency.

..The only way to improve anything is to dare to talk about it honestly...

Nobody is opposed to constructive dialogue.

Some are opposed to deliberately trying to offend normal people not causing anybody any harm.

And for some unexplained reason others are not.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I want people to be honest. If that offends. So be it.

The opposite of not offending somebody is not dishonesty.

It is decency.

False dichotomy. Those are not the only two options. There's an almost infinite variety of settings on that control panel.

..The only way to improve anything is to dare to talk about it honestly...

Nobody is opposed to constructive dialogue.

Don't agree. Anybody questioning queer theory today is likely to be branded reactionary and sexist. Even though the theories are not backed up by research. Watson got his entire career axed for pointing out that we have no evidence that there aren't significant genetic differences between human races. He wasn't saying there were differences. He just pointed out that we have no reliable data on this either way. It hasn't been studied yet (by non-racist non-pseudo-scientists). The idea that being a Muslim might have an impact on behaviour. It's totally taboo to study in the liberal world. As a liberal you're supposed to assume that people wear a religion like people wear pants. And the type of Islam is irrelevant. Why are we so afraid to research it? A while back there was a study that showed that Muslims were systematically excluded from psychological research in USA.

These are extreme examples.

Nah... constructive criticism within the liberal world is not always welcome. There are taboo subjects we don't stray into. I'm not saying the conservative side is any better. It's always better thinking about things (liberals), than not thinking at all (conservatives). But our side (liberals) also has problems. This is one of them.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes but this isn't saying that PC is the problem. This is saying that some people who use PC are wrong. When it's done properly and for a good reason, say somebody like Trump says all Mexicans are rapists, then I think it's right and proper to try and shame him. He might not stop, they usually don't, but he's made out as a shameful example and as you say, we're a social species. And if a racist does get depressed for being shamed for being a racist, well, that's too bad but he gets to take his own poison.
EB

What's wrong about just calmly saying to a person like that that you disagree? And offer your arguments... if he's interested. Do you want him to stop saying that all Mexicans are rapists, or do you want him to stop thinking that all Mexicans are rapists? Do you want the racists to stop saying racist things, or do you want him to stop being racist.

What's the goal of shaming him? How could it possibly make the world a better place if we're constantly on the prowl for people to say dumb shit so we can get to destroy their lives over it?

What's wrong with people just having a civilised conversation where they disagree? Being a racist is ok. It's a belief. We can't control what we believe. It's an unfortunate belief. But I don't think we will get fewer racists by terrorising them through social sanctions when they express themselves. If anything that will just make them insular and prevent us from talking them out of it. Better to let them say their thing IMHO.

We know of rational debate and how to trade arguments peacefully since a very long time. You will notice that people sometimes still think they have to resort to a more emotionally charged mode of exchange. Why would that be?

I will guess it's when we feel that the other person is being somehow irrational or dishonest. In such a situation, many people will say that there would be no point in trying to engage in a rational exchange of arguments. I'm just reading a book where it says that people like Descartes, Bacon, Galileo and others thought there was no point arguing natural philosophy against the Aristotelian view of the world and that it was better just to ridicule the opposition, which they did very effectively. For some reason you've decided PC was bad. Yet, in fact, what PC people do is really just what most people choose to do on occasion. PC people decided it had to be systematic against certain people, I will guess precisely those people who are being clearly dishonest or irrational in their discriminatory declarations, but what they are doing is no different from what most of us are likely to have done many times and will do again many time in their lives. So, it's nothing to do with PC. It's just the way people interact with each other, including reasonable people.

Trevor Phillips has been very articulate in showing the bad consequences of this way of doing things but if you want to criticise PC on the ground you are identifying here, then you have to criticise every instance of shaming in the world. And then I don't believe you could claim to know it would definitely be a good thing if all human beings could suddenly stop resorting to shaming. I certainly accept it would be better sometimes not to do it but I suspect at other times it's all you could do short of resorting to brutal and extreme measures.

If you think Trump could listen to rational arguments then you're probably somewhat isolated in the whole world now. In any case, you won't have any evidence that shaming is mostly counterproductive or harmful overall. And so for PC. Again, I'm sure there are cases where PC is the wrong method but then you'll have to take up the matter with those who can't do it properly. They are responsible of what they do.
EB

 

[iolo]

What's wrong about just calmly saying to a person like that that you disagree? And offer your arguments... if he's interested. Do you want him to stop saying that all Mexicans are rapists, or do you want him to stop thinking that all Mexicans are rapists? Do you want the racists to stop saying racist things, or do you want him to stop being racist.

What's the goal of shaming him? How could it possibly make the world a better place if we're constantly on the prowl for people to say dumb shit so we can get to destroy their lives over it?

What's wrong with people just having a civilised conversation where they disagree? Being a racist is ok. It's a belief. We can't control what we believe. It's an unfortunate belief. But I don't think we will get fewer racists by terrorising them through social sanctions when they express themselves. If anything that will just make them insular and prevent us from talking them out of it. Better to let them say their thing IMHO.

We know of rational debate and how to trade arguments peacefully since a very long time. You will notice that people sometimes still think they have to resort to a more emotionally charged mode of exchange. Why would that be?

I will guess it's when we feel that the other person is being somehow irrational or dishonest. In such a situation, many people will say that there would be no point in trying to engage in a rational exchange of arguments. I'm just reading a book where it says that people like Descartes, Bacon, Galileo and others thought there was no point arguing natural philosophy against the Aristotelian view of the world and that it was better just to ridicule the opposition, which they did very effectively. For some reason you've decided PC was bad. Yet, in fact, what PC people do is really just what most people choose to do on occasion. PC people decided it had to be systematic against certain people, I will guess precisely those people who are being clearly dishonest or irrational in their discriminatory declarations, but what they are doing is no different from what most of us are likely to have done many times and will do again many time in their lives. So, it's nothing to do with PC. It's just the way people interact with each other, including reasonable people.

Trevor Phillips has been very articulate in showing the bad consequences of this way of doing things but if you want to criticise PC on the ground you are identifying here, then you have to criticise every instance of shaming in the world. And then I don't believe you could claim to know it would definitely be a good thing if all human beings could suddenly stop resorting to shaming. I certainly accept it would be better sometimes not to do it but I suspect at other times it's all you could do short of resorting to brutal and extreme measures.

If you think Trump could listen to rational arguments then you're probably somewhat isolated in the whole world now. In any case, you won't have any evidence that shaming is mostly counterproductive or harmful overall. And so for PC. Again, I'm sure there are cases where PC is the wrong method but then you'll have to take up the matter with those who can't do it properly. They are responsible of what they do.
EB

Political correctness is nazi language for decent good manners, that's all. What on earth is there to discuss with them?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Shaming doesn't have to be brutal or extreme. It's really saying that misrepresenting other people may have seriously harmful consequences for them and that it is your responsibility if it comes to that. You can't just babysit people who pay no attention to the welfare of other people. People have to face their social responsibilities. We are a social species.

I think it does. If it's not brutal and extreme then where's the shame?

Sorry, but brutal and extreme includes executing and torturing. If PC is brutal and extreme, how do you qualify executing and torturing?

Shaming has to make them feel very bad. Unless they do, they aren't feeling shame. Fear of shame is an extremely powerful tool for controlling people.

So, you admit that PC can be effective. Good, that's one point we have established.

Education is also a very effective way of controlling people. Would you want to ban education? You know pupils and students who fail their exams feel very bad, don't you? Would you therefore say that education is brutal and extreme?

South Park's PC-principal isn't a character that sprung out of thin air. That character is a comment on something that's actually going on in our society.

I'm not sure what the argument is. That some PC people are stupid? You're welcome.

I think South Park's PC-principal distils what's wrong with PC. He isn't politically correct at all. He just says politically correct things. He in in fact the most vile stereotypical bullying jock. But because he says all the right (PC) words he can behave awfully. He treats being PC as a game, where it's about scoring points saying the most PC thing. To him being PC is essentially a social competition.

PC principal is also white, athletic, middle-class and successful. As is their crew. In every scene with them they first say something politically correct and then go onto hitting on some white young bimbo they want to bang.

In the world of PC-principal non-majority non-normative people aren't any more included than they were with the old principal. It's all just talk. It's an act. PC-principal and his crew exclude the hell of out people, but couch the exclusion in pretty PC phrases.

So just because you can caricature PC people we know PC people are all like the caricature? So, again, yes some PC people are stupid as other people in any group you care to identify, even bright people.

Oh, yeah, it's a blunt instrument. What he can't guaranty is that refraining from PC will not have vastly more harmful effects. Well, we just don't know but the actual side effects of PC are nothing compared to the ills of discrimination we've seen in the past.

It's a false dichotomy. The choices aren't tyranny of the majority or PC tyranny. Why any tyranny at all? Why not just let people get on with it without judging? Perhaps somebody telling off a black person for doing something is racist. Perhaps it was justified. Let's not make any assumptions in advance.

You are free to experiment. There are more than 140 countries in the world. Do you know of any one of them where shaming is somehow banned? Do you know of any psychotherapist advocating this idea? Some political movement? Anyone having achieve convincing results?

I'll help you. Christianity for one can be regarded as a social experiment where shaming is not the done thing and instead people are supposed to confess their sins. It's left to God to judge the sinner and He isn't going to do much about it any time soon I think. So can you tell me now how Christendom clearly exemplify this is a good idea? Like the Inquisition for instance? Like child abuse? And Nazis atrocities? And the two World Wars?

Ok, maybe you can find a better exemple because I can't.
EB

 

[bigfield]

What's wrong about just calmly saying to a person like that that you disagree? And offer your arguments... if he's interested. Do you want him to stop saying that all Mexicans are rapists, or do you want him to stop thinking that all Mexicans are rapists? Do you want the racists to stop saying racist things, or do you want him to stop being racist.

What's the goal of shaming him? How could it possibly make the world a better place if we're constantly on the prowl for people to say dumb shit so we can get to destroy their lives over it?

Much of what is said in public discourse is a means of establishing control over people. Silencing dissenters is easier than engaging them and is a more direct means by which one can ensure their narrative is heard but not questioned.

The problem is that this stifles social progress and is counterproductive to cultural change.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you think Trump could listen to rational arguments then you're probably somewhat isolated in the whole world now. In any case, you won't have any evidence that shaming is mostly counterproductive or harmful overall. And so for PC. Again, I'm sure there are cases where PC is the wrong method but then you'll have to take up the matter with those who can't do it properly. They are responsible of what they do.

Because shaming Trump has made him stop? I'm not saying we shouldn't shame him. But we need to be honest about why we are doing it. We shame Trump because it's the only satisfaction we, the disempowered, can get. We're watching the on-going train wreck and can't do anything about it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

https://mitpress.mit.edu/hate-spin

I just heard an interview with this guy, Cherian George, of the other side of hate speech. He calls it hate spin. It's activists picking up on hate that targeted and sensible people ignore, but then spin it until it reaches fever pitch. It's the industry of creating offence and capitalising on it. He talks about specific people who have made a career out of being offended, and getting other people to feel offended. One case study is the Mohamed cartoon thing. He also talks about "professional victim" feminists, like Anita Sarkesian.

This could all go away if we stop taking offended people seriously.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you think Trump could listen to rational arguments then you're probably somewhat isolated in the whole world now. In any case, you won't have any evidence that shaming is mostly counterproductive or harmful overall. And so for PC. Again, I'm sure there are cases where PC is the wrong method but then you'll have to take up the matter with those who can't do it properly. They are responsible of what they do.

Because shaming Trump has made him stop? I'm not saying we shouldn't shame him. But we need to be honest about why we are doing it. We shame Trump because it's the only satisfaction we, the disempowered, can get. We're watching the on-going train wreck and can't do anything about it.

So now shaming isn't effective?! A moment ago it was a brutal and extreme form of social control and now it's just pathetically ineffective? You should make up your mind.

Shaming is a social act. It's directed as much to the supposed guilty party as it is to any potential would be copy cats, and towards the rest of the audience, so to speak, to get moral support and potentially prepare for more proactive measures. Look at the reactions over Trump faux-pas throughout the world. There's a clear sense that he managed to unite the whole world against him. This can only have the effect of promoting a coordinated response and may end up re-enforcing support for the fight against climate warming, not least in the U.S.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Seems that if one has the attention span and memory of a piece of gravel - it can't remember that yesterday it was part of a rock - and it is so self absorbed as to divert every comment, criticism or no, as an attack on itself - habits are powerful things - shaming is meaningless. Actually, for that one everything is meaningless except it's proffered self.

I don't think what I just wrote is political speech. It reads too science based.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Because shaming Trump has made him stop? I'm not saying we shouldn't shame him. But we need to be honest about why we are doing it. We shame Trump because it's the only satisfaction we, the disempowered, can get. We're watching the on-going train wreck and can't do anything about it.

So now shaming isn't effective?! A moment ago it was a brutal and extreme form of social control and now it's just pathetically ineffective? You should make up your mind.

Shaming is a social act. It's directed as much to the supposed guilty party as it is to any potential would be copy cats, and towards the rest of the audience, so to speak, to get moral support and potentially prepare for more proactive measures. Look at the reactions over Trump faux-pas throughout the world. There's a clear sense that he managed to unite the whole world against him. This can only have the effect of promoting a coordinated response and may end up re-enforcing support for the fight against climate warming, not least in the U.S.
EB

ha ha. I'm guessing you're only pretending to be this dumb to be funny.

Shame as a tool for social control only works if it leads to social isolation and loss of status. It's not going to work on a guy like Donald Trump.

If it's true that Trump is a narcissist shame works even worse. A shamed narcissist will only lie more and more and become increasingly extreme. Narcissists aren't primarily lying to other people. They're primarily lying to themselves. And they use others to maintain a warped sense of self. He'll surround himself with an ever shrinking circle of yes-men There's just no way to reach a guy like that.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So now shaming isn't effective?! A moment ago it was a brutal and extreme form of social control and now it's just pathetically ineffective? You should make up your mind.

Shaming is a social act. It's directed as much to the supposed guilty party as it is to any potential would be copy cats, and towards the rest of the audience, so to speak, to get moral support and potentially prepare for more proactive measures. Look at the reactions over Trump faux-pas throughout the world. There's a clear sense that he managed to unite the whole world against him. This can only have the effect of promoting a coordinated response and may end up re-enforcing support for the fight against climate warming, not least in the U.S.
EB

ha ha. I'm guessing you're only pretending to be this dumb to be funny.

Shame as a tool for social control only works if it leads to social isolation and loss of status. It's not going to work on a guy like Donald Trump.

If it's true that Trump is a narcissist shame works even worse. A shamed narcissist will only lie more and more and become increasingly extreme. Narcissists aren't primarily lying to other people. They're primarily lying to themselves. And they use others to maintain a warped sense of self. He'll surround himself with an ever shrinking circle of yes-men There's just no way to reach a guy like that.

Sure, it's quite clear to me that nobody was ever expecting Trump to suddenly see the error of his ways. In fact, nobody cares. So shaming Trump is essentially directed at all of us. The expectation is probably that more people will see what the problem is with Trump and more people will eventually turn against him than is already the case now, leading to various scenarios where Trump will be one way or the other rendered innocuous enough.

That point was already implicit in my previous post but you seem to pick and choose your arguments.

Now that you talk about the narcissism of Trump, there may also be a conscious or unconscious strategy here on the part of his opponents that they expect him for the reason you give to display an increasingly aberrant behaviour as the shaming is increased so that fewer and fewer people will possibly still support him. That's a somewhat dangerous strategy but it may well be decisive. It could conceivably lead to his institutional isolation. Nobody really care about 'social isolation' in the case of Trump. It's not really personal. What people want is that he be disempowered somehow and stop being a nuisance as president of the United States.

Anyway, we're digressing now, which probably shows we've made our points. At least it's an example that others would do well to follow of how we're supposed to exchange views.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sure, it's quite clear to me that nobody was ever expecting Trump to suddenly see the error of his ways. In fact, nobody cares. So shaming Trump is essentially directed at all of us. The expectation is probably that more people will see what the problem is with Trump and more people will eventually turn against him than is already the case now, leading to various scenarios where Trump will be one way or the other rendered innocuous enough.

Ok, so it's directed to Trump supporters. It's the same deal. Do we want people to stop saying they support Trump or do we want people to stop supporting Trump? Nobody likes being humiliated and bullied. If all we're doing is making people retreat from dialogue we've already lost.

You can't influence if you antagonise. People making fun of/shaming Trump supporters isn't about making the world a better place or making people stop voting for Trump. It's just bullying. Which is fun. That's why the kids do it in playgrounds. The fact that the other side also does it, doesn't make it ok when we do it. Trump is in a position of authority... so he's fair game IMHO. But let's not dress this up as something it's not.

But now we've veered away from the topic. This is another subject all together. It's is about political persuasion and tribalism. Not political correctness/decency.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sure, it's quite clear to me that nobody was ever expecting Trump to suddenly see the error of his ways. In fact, nobody cares. So shaming Trump is essentially directed at all of us. The expectation is probably that more people will see what the problem is with Trump and more people will eventually turn against him than is already the case now, leading to various scenarios where Trump will be one way or the other rendered innocuous enough.

Ok, so it's directed to Trump supporters. It's the same deal. Do we want people to stop saying they support Trump or do we want people to stop supporting Trump? Nobody likes being humiliated and bullied. If all we're doing is making people retreat from dialogue we've already lost.

You can't influence if you antagonise. People making fun of/shaming Trump supporters isn't about making the world a better place or making people stop voting for Trump. It's just bullying. Which is fun. That's why the kids do it in playgrounds. The fact that the other side also does it, doesn't make it ok when we do it. Trump is in a position of authority... so he's fair game IMHO. But let's not dress this up as something it's not.

But now we've veered away from the topic. This is another subject all together. It's is about political persuasion and tribalism. Not political correctness/decency.

Making fun of and shaming are two very different things. The fact that we have both sorts in the criticisms of Trump doesn't mean they are the same thing. It just means Trump is susceptible to both. But some people will resort to only shaming. Others to only making fun of him. and some to both.

I also think you over-estimate how much we know and understand Trump's supporters. Most likely, these people are of various backgrounds and have different sensibilities and therefore likely to be sensitive to different sorts of criticisms, and sometimes to none. If the opponents to Trump knew who these people were exactly they could narrow down their criticism to something less blunt than making fun of or shaming.

It's also the case that opponents are themselves very different sorts. Some can afford to be more articulate and intelligent in their criticisms because maybe it's their job anyway, others only have the time or intellectual capabilities for making fun of Trump.

I think some people will resort to shaming because that's how they feel about it. They could do more but feel Trump is just dishonest, manipulative, erratic etc. They are likely to think that shaming Trump can make at least some of his original supporters change their mind. I think the assumption is that most Trump supporters are decent people who have been deceived by Trump's rhetorical tricks. It should be less difficult for many Trump supporters to change their minds about Trump than to change their personal political or social views.

So, your analysis is too simplistic to be effective. We do have to make assumptions about other people and shaming is a blunt instrument just as PC is a blunt instrument. You want to pretend we have something like a perfect knowledge of the situation but that's not true. We do what we can given what we have to work with and there is inevitably collateral damage. So the question is really can you propose a different method that most people could implement? If so, why is it not implemented anywhere yet?
EB