Tópico: Até quando politicamente correto?

[André Luiz]

Mas o politicamente incorreto pode ser considerado o politicamente correto do babaca?

No trailer do filme do pantera negra, na treta do papel higiênico e na treta do Leandro Narloch no History Channel ficaram as duas militâncias ( PCs e escrotos) se enfrentando

[Geotecton]

O que é que aconteceu no trailer do Pantera Negra?

[André Luiz]

O que é que aconteceu no trailer do Pantera Negra?

Nos sites de cultura pop nacionais e gringos teve galera querendo boicotar porque " era filme de preto", "genocídio branco", "macacolândia", "onde já se viu civilização de preto com tecnologia avançada".

E do outro lado a galera da lacração e do empoderamento.

Teoria da ferradura?

[Diegojaf]

O que é que aconteceu no trailer do Pantera Negra?

Nos sites de cultura pop nacionais e gringos teve galera querendo boicotar porque " era filme de preto", "genocídio branco", "macacolândia", "onde já se viu civilização de preto com tecnologia avançada".

E do outro lado a galera da lacração e do empoderamento.

Teoria da ferradura?

Eu nunca consigo ver esses ataques de mimimi como algo padrão mesmo pro mainstream de direita ou de esquerda. Eu não sei que tipo de página que vocês seguem, mas quando cai na minha timeline esse tipo de coisa, eu sempre encaro como algum absurdo tão estatisticamente insignificante dentro de determinada linha de pensamento que nem vale a pena perder tempo com...

[Muad'Dib]

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2017/12/1944516-mercado-de-sp-produz-cartilha-contra-casamento-gay-e-papel-das-mulheres.shtml

[Geotecton]

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2017/12/1944516-mercado-de-sp-produz-cartilha-contra-casamento-gay-e-papel-das-mulheres.shtml

Uma empresa comandada por idiotas.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

^{GREG LUKIANOFF AND JONATHAN HAIDT}

The Coddling of the American Mind

In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.

[...] There’s a saying common in education circles: Don’t teach students what to think; teach them how to think. The idea goes back at least as far as Socrates. Today, what we call the Socratic method is a way of teaching that fosters critical thinking, in part by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them. Such questioning sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding.

But vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a very different way. It prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong. The harm may be more immediate, too. A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically.

[...]

Let’s look at recent trends in higher education in light of the distortions that cognitive behavioral therapy identifies. We will draw the names and descriptions of these distortions from David D. Burns’s popular book Feeling Good, as well as from the second edition of Treatment Plans and Interventions for Depression and Anxiety Disorders, by Robert L. Leahy, Stephen J. F. Holland, and Lata K. McGinn.

[...]

higher education’s embrace of “emotional reasoning”

Burns defines emotional reasoning as assuming “that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: ‘I feel it, therefore it must be true.’ ” Leahy, Holland, and McGinn define it as letting “your feelings guide your interpretation of reality.” But, of course, subjective feelings are not always trustworthy guides; unrestrained, they can cause people to lash out at others who have done nothing wrong. Therapy often involves talking yourself down from the idea that each of your emotional responses represents something true or important. [...]

If our universities are teaching students that their emotions can be used effectively as weapons—or at least as evidence in administrative proceedings—then they are teaching students to nurture a kind of hypersensitivity that will lead them into countless drawn-out conflicts in college and beyond. Schools may be training students in thinking styles that will damage their careers and friendships, along with their mental health.

fortune-telling and trigger warnings

[...]

Students who call for trigger warnings may be correct that some of their peers are harboring memories of trauma that could be reactivated by course readings. But they are wrong to try to prevent such reactivations. Students with PTSD should of course get treatment, but they should not try to avoid normal life, with its many opportunities for habituation. Classroom discussions are safe places to be exposed to incidental reminders of trauma (such as the word violate). A discussion of violence is unlikely to be followed by actual violence, so it is a good way to help students change the associations that are causing them discomfort. And they’d better get their habituation done in college, because the world beyond college will be far less willing to accommodate requests for trigger warnings and opt-outs.

The expansive use of trigger warnings may also foster unhealthy mental habits in the vastly larger group of students who do not suffer from PTSD or other anxiety disorders. People acquire their fears not just from their own past experiences, but from social learning as well. If everyone around you acts as though something is dangerous—elevators, certain neighborhoods, novels depicting racism—then you are at risk of acquiring that fear too. The psychiatrist Sarah Roff pointed this out last year in an online article for The Chronicle of Higher Education. “One of my biggest concerns about trigger warnings,” Roff wrote, “is that they will apply not just to those who have experienced trauma, but to all students, creating an atmosphere in which they are encouraged to believe that there is something dangerous or damaging about discussing difficult aspects of our history.”

[...]

magnification, labeling, and microaggressions

Burns defines magnification as “exaggerat[ing] the importance of things,” and Leahy, Holland, and McGinn define labeling as “assign[ing] global negative traits to yourself and others.” The recent collegiate trend of uncovering allegedly racist, sexist, classist, or otherwise discriminatory microaggressions doesn’t incidentally teach students to focus on small or accidental slights. Its purpose is to get students to focus on them and then relabel the people who have made such remarks as aggressors. [...]

Surely people make subtle or thinly veiled racist or sexist remarks on college campuses, and it is right for students to raise questions and initiate discussions about such cases. But the increased focus on microaggressions coupled with the endorsement of emotional reasoning is a formula for a constant state of outrage, even toward well-meaning speakers trying to engage in genuine discussion.

What are we doing to our students if we encourage them to develop extra-thin skin in the years just before they leave the cocoon of adult protection and enter the workforce? Would they not be better prepared to flourish if we taught them to question their own emotional reactions, and to give people the benefit of the doubt?

[...]

teaching students to catastrophize and have zero tolerance

Burns defines catastrophizing as a kind of magnification that turns “commonplace negative events into nightmarish monsters.” Leahy, Holland, and McGinn define it as believing “that what has happened or will happen” is “so awful and unbearable that you won’t be able to stand it.” Requests for trigger warnings involve catastrophizing, but this way of thinking colors other areas of campus thought as well.

[...]

All of these actions teach a common lesson: smart people do, in fact, overreact to innocuous speech, make mountains out of molehills, and seek punishment for anyone whose words make anyone else feel uncomfortable.

mental filtering and disinvitation season

As Burns defines it, mental filtering is “pick[ing] out a negative detail in any situation and dwell[ing] on it exclusively, thus perceiving that the whole situation is negative.” Leahy, Holland, and McGinn refer to this as “negative filtering,” which they define as “focus[ing] almost exclusively on the negatives and seldom notic[ing] the positives.” When applied to campus life, mental filtering allows for simpleminded demonization.

[...]

If campus culture conveys the idea that visitors must be pure, with résumés that never offend generally left-leaning campus sensibilities, then higher education will have taken a further step toward intellectual homogeneity and the creation of an environment in which students rarely encounter diverse viewpoints. And universities will have reinforced the belief that it’s okay to filter out the positive. If students graduate believing that they can learn nothing from people they dislike or from those with whom they disagree, we will have done them a great intellectual disservice.

[........]

Teaching students to avoid giving unintentional offense is a worthy goal, especially when the students come from many different cultural backgrounds. But students should also be taught how to live in a world full of potential offenses. Why not teach incoming students how to practice cognitive behavioral therapy? Given high and rising rates of mental illness, this simple step would be among the most humane and supportive things a university could do. The cost and time commitment could be kept low: a few group training sessions could be supplemented by Web sites or apps. But the outcome could pay dividends in many ways. For example, a shared vocabulary about reasoning, common distortions, and the appropriate use of evidence to draw conclusions would facilitate critical thinking and real debate. It would also tone down the perpetual state of outrage that seems to engulf some colleges these days, allowing students’ minds to open more widely to new ideas and new people. A greater commitment to formal, public debate on campus—and to the assembly of a more politically diverse faculty—would further serve that goal.

[ . . . ]


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

[Gauss]

O politicamente correto é o novo puritanismo. Que orgulho dos progressistas.

Fifa proíbe emissoras de TV de filmarem ‘torcedoras bonitas’

Em meio aos casos de assédio na Rússia, a Fifa exigiu nesta quinta-feira (12) que as emissoras de televisão reduzam as filmagens de torcedoras “atraentes” durante os últimos jogos da Copa do Mundo de 2018.
[...]

https://istoe.com.br/fifa-proibe-emissoras-de-tv-de-filmarem-torcedoras-bonitas/

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Acho que é só jogada de marketing PC. Como é que policiam isso? Que medida há em caso de desacato?

[Gauss]

Acho que é só jogada de marketing PC. Como é que policiam isso? Que medida há em caso de desacato?

Também acho que é só para agradar torcida para os PCs. Mas o patrão baixou o decreto.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

O curioso é que a Rússia em si tinha revogado há pouco tempo leis relacionadas a violência doméstica. Será que a FIFA fez algum lobby para voltar a lei, como exigência para que o país hospedasse a copa, e eu não fiquei sabendo?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/07/putin-approves-change-to-law-decriminalising-domestic-violence

[Gauss]

O curioso é que a Rússia em si tinha revogado há pouco tempo leis relacionadas a violência doméstica. Será que a FIFA fez algum lobby para voltar a lei, como exigência para que o país hospedasse a copa, e eu não fiquei sabendo?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/07/putin-approves-change-to-law-decriminalising-domestic-violence

Pelo que eu sabia, o homem ainda podia bater na mulher uma vez por mês, por lei. Não havia mudado.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/16/style/snowplow-parenting-scandal.html

...

In her practice, Dr. Levine said, she regularly sees college freshmen who “have had to come home from Emory or Brown because they don’t have the minimal kinds of adult skills that one needs to be in college.”

One came home because there was a rat in the dorm room. Some didn’t like their roommates. Others said it was too much work, and they had never learned independent study skills. One didn’t like to eat food with sauce. Her whole life, her parents had helped her avoid sauce, calling friends before going to their houses for dinner. At college, she didn’t know how to cope with the cafeteria options — covered in sauce.

“Here are parents who have spent 18 years grooming their kids with what they perceive as advantages, but they’re not,” Dr. Levine said.

...

"Na cafeteria da lanchonete tem molho" → larga a faculdade.

Perfeitamente lógico.