Terrific video. Some thoughts:

1. The flip side of not taking a position is that there is enormous social pressure to take the politically correct positions. If you step outside the various lines you are publicly named as all sorts of bigot and literally associated with criminal acts. As an example, say the wrong thing on a feminist blog and you're not just a sexist, but a rape apologist, and often a likely pedophile who should have his children taken away.

I am certain the silencing is much worse on campus where people in one class will see each other in the next class, and on facebook, and online and places where Google etc., will index for years and will be seen by friends, lovers, relatives and employers.

It's no wonder no one wants to take a position.

2. My own personal experience suggests a lot of this is due to society's (women and feminist mostly) crazy love of therapy and therapists, but that's a whole 'nother story.

People's opinions are now sacred, as long as there are no facts, logic, intelligence, or data to back them up.

Thirty years ago, you were still allowed to be sarcastic enough to shut the idiots up. Now you have to be careful not to hurt their feelings or you can find yourself on the receiving end of a nasty pc campaign that can get you fired or worse.

Try argiuing against the anti-vaccine crowd.

Science isn't good enough unless its good enough (aka it supports their belief system).

Sounds like the population and thought control techniques of our various overlords have been a success.

Ours is the age of the bureaucrat and lawyer, where everyone is equal, thus all modes of thought are equal. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Can't watch the video right now, but I hope it mentions that it's perfectly possible to be polite and firmly assertive at the same time.

As Miss Manners once said in a Ms. interview (not verbatim): “Sometimes you have to upset people – or an entire society. A lot of people got upset at the feminist movement because men had all the toys and women wanted some.”

Here's another column of hers I posted a while back:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-01-01/features/9801010196_1_miss-manners-etiquette-vulgarity

Last paragraphs:

"....It isn't as though etiquette is opposed to airing controversy. On the contrary (so to speak): It prides itself on its specialty of providing rules for the very situations where controversial matters are most strenuously contested, such as courtrooms, classrooms and meetings. Etiquette (usually supplied by the rules of order of Miss Manners' colleagues Messrs. Robert or Riddick) is what keeps debate fair and to the point, rather than allowing one person to dominate or the whole thing to deteriorate into an exchange of insults.

"So it is a terrible insult to etiquette to characterize it as running around seeking superficial agreement at the cost of meaningful debate.

"But such rules cannot be invoked in social settings.

"Lightly held views and topics of no tremendous weight to those present may be bandied about pleasantly. People who trust one another enough to be able to discuss one of the supercharged topics peacefully (possibly because they are superpolite in spite of their differences, but more likely because they are all on the same side) may also do so without interference from etiquette, which knows enough not to disturb people who are having a good time.

"But confirmations of opinions already held and exercises in faking respect for people whose stupid or vicious opinions differ from one's own should not be confused with meaningful exchanges.

"So it isn't Miss Manners who is banning the casual airing of important topics; it is human nature."

(end)

And in her 1990s book "Miss Manners Rescues Civilization," she talks plenty about PCness.

Oh, and regarding the anti-science crowd: While no doubt many in the alternative medicine crowd are Democrats, it's fascinating to note how many in the 6,000-year-old-Earth crowd are Republicans - as are those who oppose vaccines and condoms for STD prevention, based on their own "science."

Maybe we can blame all this on the unofficial children-are-equal-to-adults movement, where the saying "you're only entitled to your informed opinion" is anathema.

I am afraid, though we are two a point where "political correctness" has become a term merely leveled at looney left stuff. PC knows no left or right (try telling someone there is no evidence for their religious beliefs and we don't have to pretend there is and see how quick you encounger right-wing "me victim of your intolerance" talk). Not every idea deserves a hearing int he name of combating political correctness and it can be used in the service of mere evidentiary relativism.

People are anti-science when it comes up against their moral intuitions and emotional commitments. Has nothing to do with left or right. Follow the moral foundations.

try telling someone there is no evidence for their religious beliefs and we don't have to pretend there is and see how quick you encounger right-wing "me victim of your intolerance" talk).

Civilized people never bring up religion or politics unless you know you are of like minds on the issue.

I have confronted people for example, on prayer in schools, but I don't do it in a confrontational manner that attacks their belief system. Even though I am a non practicing Catholic agnostic, if someone says they should allow prayer in schools, I say, I am opposed as some other denomination will likely to be picking the prayers, and the place for religion is in church with a like minded group of believers, not the public schools.

If you are running around attacking peoples deeply held beliefs, for no reason at all, I am not surprised you are getting pushback, and they feel victimized.

"Oh, and regarding the anti-science crowd: While no doubt many in the alternative medicine crowd are Democrats, it's fascinating to note how many in the 6,000-year-old-Earth crowd are Republicans - as are those who oppose vaccines and condoms for STD prevention, based on their own "science."

None of these people are historic Republicans.

These people were historically democrats, and union members, all of them pretty much, until the Democratic party decided they were in favor of abortion, pro divorce, and the biggest one....anti gun.
Ronald Reagan gathered these voters in for the Republicans, when the democratic party left them behind.

Here we are agreeing or quietly politely disagreeing.
What will you do with something of minimal risk in the real world?
For example:

Arifi Bibi was stoned
(-Tally-Ban Haram)
for having her own cell phone.

It made her very happy
to call all those she
wanted to share her story.

Every call she made is stored
in some data store.
We want to hear her some more.

But those who want to censor
our freedom stoned her,
and they committed murder.

Tally Ban Haram calls a
decree, a fatwa
on all who make such murder.

Where will come the Avenger?
She wears a burka.
Children will avenge her.

Wherever seen: Taliban,
add the word Haram.
That is the Truth in my dream.

I can't be Arifi, and
it's too late to stand
with her, but hear, everyone:

For her I take a new name,
speak it when you can:
I am Tally Ban Haram.

- Written by the Alex Khan.
© all rights reserved, 2013
License hereby granted to each person to reprint one copy,
if made with this full notice.
All rights reserved Worldwide. May not be reproduced without permission.
May be posted electronically provided that it is transmitted unaltered, in its entirety, and without charge.

Lenona, great article - thanks for the link.

I'm comfortable with and cable of arguing - it can be a great way to learn and especially to become familiar with the terrain of a particular intellectual territory, the limits of my perspective, how someone else's mind works, and their world view.

But most of all, what I get out of a heated, well thought out, fact-based and heart felt argument (one in which the person gives a shit about the topic) is a greater respect for the person with whom I'm having the go-round. And usually more trust.

In my experience, it is women who have a thin veneer of pretending to be nice but in practice they are passive aggressive and maneuver through life as back stabbers, taking cheap shots in a way that leaves them just out of reach. Also, men desperate to get laid.

I'd rather have a smart and honest argument, and a good laugh.

*capable,* not cable. Jeeze.

Between my two left thumbs and auto-correct...

"Oh, and regarding the anti-science crowd: While no doubt many in the alternative medicine crowd are Democrats, it's fascinating to note how many in the 6,000-year-old-Earth crowd are Republicans - as are those who oppose vaccines and condoms for STD prevention, based on their own "science."
____________________________________

None of these people are historic Republicans.

These people were historically democrats, and union members, all of them pretty much, until the Democratic party decided they were in favor of abortion, pro divorce, and the biggest one....anti gun.
Ronald Reagan gathered these voters in for the Republicans, when the democratic party left them behind.

Posted by: Isab at October 12, 2013 11:46 AM
___________________________________

Cite, please? I can't imagine why the 6,000-year-old-Earth crowd would not include people from BOTH parties before, say, WWI....

But then, I've yet to see a simple explanation (even in kids' history books) as to why American civil rights leaders moved from the Republicans to the Democrats in the early 20th century - pre-1950, I mean.

Lenona, Isab is talking about the post-Civil War period up to about 1980. After the war, the American South became solidly Democrat in its voting patterns. Once the post-Lincoln GOP imploded over the Grant-era scandals, there were so few Republican voters in the South that Democrat primaries became the contested elections in many states. As an example, there was no GOP-elected Govenor in Alabama in the 20th century until 1986, and that one was a fluke (although it established a new pattern). So yes, the anti-evolution fringe that is now identified with the GOP was once attached to the Democrats.

I would argue that, in terms of practical politics, the Democrats' anti-science wing does a lot more harm. The bulk of the population laughs off attemps by anti-science Republicans to deny evolution and claim that the world is only 6,000 years old; their occasional victories are newsworthy because they are so rare. Compare that to the current treatment of the global warming myth, which is believed by a majority of the population and taught as gospel in many public schools.