Ideal approach to solving society's problems

[Judaka]

Hi all

I presume you have all heard the expression "all publicity is good publicity" and with the rise of Donald Trump and how he handles the media that statement resonates with me now more than ever. I have long thought that this kind of thinking was even more true in the market place of ideas. The prevalence of an idea forces people to take stances on it, people are pressured to have a particular stance and you are likely to receive if not social benefits for a stance, then at least you will find solidarity in existing groups of people who bond around that idea. The price of having ideas that are not within your culture is there too, nobody understand what you're about and few people share your view.

It feels as though once you have a prevalent idea within society, it tends to continue to be represented until it is forgotten about. Communism and Nazism are classic examples as having disastrous results in the 20th century and by all accounts should probably no longer be considered on an observable scale yet because nobody can stop talking about them and groups exist around them, they continue to persist and are even gaining attraction the more publicly vilified they become. The only way an idea seems to cease being represented is when it is completely forgotten about and nobody cares about the issue anymore. People aren't even given the opportunity to believe in that ideology anymore because they never learn about it and there's no social rewards for it. There are people in the west converting to Islam despite how contradictory it is to western values but have almost no chance of adopting old greek or roman religions, where more cultural similarities are likely to exist.

As I have already claimed, this trend is not exclusive to "sanctioned" or promoted ideas within society yet differing views will almost always be in response to those ideas. Satanists don't exist where Christians don't, the hippie movement dies out with America's bigger wars and more intense media coverage of wars and footage of wars, emos and goths emerge in response to the public discourse of the conservative right trying to hold onto conservative family values etc. For contrarians, young people seeking independence and people who just don't like to be told what to do must respond to prevalent ideas in order to achieve their various aims.

Right now people seem to be very concerned about their political leanings, the status of minorities and ethnicity in general. People also seem to feel that giving awareness to these kinds of issues is an important step in trying to fix them and in some ways that makes sense. However given the trends of the past and the nature of the market place of ideas, won't making politics the main focus of society lead to people taking the extreme views? Won't talking about race all the time lead to people viewing race as being important and increasing racist sentiments? Will trying to force others to care about minorities like trans people or immigrants lead to hate and intolerance? Yet if we don't talk about the issues within our society then we may not be able to solve them. The alternative might be enacting strong social reprisal of those who would even mention racism or strong altruistic political views as being themselves racist or crazy for bringing up such ideas, like we would if somebody were to be insensitive to cancer patients or to a grieving parent.

I would really like to hear peoples general thoughts on this issue but my main question is: With regards to cultural issues where the key issue is the beliefs and ideas of people; define the most effective method for achieving progress within society, awareness, stigmatisation or an unmentioned of your own choosing?

[Grotto19]

My degrees are in sociology and psychology so this is right in my wheelhouse. Sadly there is no easy answer to your question. Discourse on contested issues always invokes a backlash. Several Black people have spoken on this such as Morgan Freeman. Claiming that the path to making discrimination go away is to stop talking about it. Not only because talking about it enflames those opposed but also because it reinforces the idea there is a fundamental difference and distinction between whites and blacks. He is not wrong about this but he is naive in his knowledge of how society works.

See when we stop talking about it it does not slip away it becomes fact. Over time not talking about it we accept alternative facts such as black people just aren’t as intelligent as white people. If literally no one is challenging that “fact” then it simply becomes a fact. Even when untrue. Both blacks and whites come to know it as a fact and no thought is given to it anymore it just is.

So no we cannot solve issues by ignoring them. This is clear. They will continue on as they are if not addressed. That said what we see now is what happens when you do the polar opposite and over react. Affirmative action, Political correctness, these tactics didn’t seem to help more than they did harm. These tactics drove people further away in many cases.

With enough study in sociology you come to realize the only stable effective change is a gradual one. Small but incessant steps. When you see backlash you stop moving and hold fast. But that is not what we have been doing. We tried to march forward and keep marching no matter what, and the result was a huge number of people radicalized in the opposite direction.

Society moves slowly. If you push too hard they panic and react. Each obstacle to progress should be taken down one step at a time not all at once. So when blacks and whites couldn’t use the same services. The first step is you blacks get water fountains too just not the ones we whites use. This people can tolerate. But if you jump right into blacks can use the same fountain your kid drinks out of then you actually go backwards from the overwhelming backlash. It isn’t right and it isn’t fair but it is how society works, it has to move in steps not jumps. Leaps only happen in societies when a great threat terrifies them into compliance.

[Burning ghost]

Act as you see fit and try to challenge (in a non-aggressive way) people to think.

Generally education is "the answer". If the population are informed and are able to make rational decisions in light of their own biases and opinions then things will get better. As long as we are talking and questioning there is hope.

I would add that nazism is basically a kind of "nationalism". I don't agree that Muslim values differ so much from western values either. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are part of the same family really. Many argue that the interpretations of the Koran lead to the huge differences in perspectives. We could also argue the same for extremist Christians in the US (there are many).

I watched a very fascinating interview recently with Zizek on Channel 4 news. Funny guy to listen to and watch! I would recommend it because he is entertaining:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN2ZGSX0cIE

I kind of see where he is coming from and why he wanted Trump to win. Falls in line with the "positives" I see in Trump being in power. The inevitable collapse of Capitalism will necessarily produce a new idea for social structure. It kind of makes sense to say that we'll only wake up once the break actually happens. Right now people are just burying their heads in the sand. Loved the way he expresses "violence" too. Very on point! Physical violence does not own the term "violence" and we need to address the factors that cause great "violence" yet inflict no direct physical harm. To make a million dollar and cause families to go without food and people to die for such so called "wealth" is more violent than punching someone in the face (MUCH more violent!)

[Webplodder]

I would simply say you need to have an open, representative cross-section of views capable of being represented.

Without this, balance will be lost enabling radicalization to be formed unchallenged. Democracy doesn't satisfy everyone, which on reflection, is its most powerful argument.

[Judaka]

My degrees are in sociology and psychology so this is right in my wheelhouse. Sadly there is no easy answer to your question. Discourse on contested issues always invokes a backlash. Several Black people have spoken on this such as Morgan Freeman. Claiming that the path to making discrimination go away is to stop talking about it. Not only because talking about it enflames those opposed but also because it reinforces the idea there is a fundamental difference and distinction between whites and blacks. He is not wrong about this but he is naive in his knowledge of how society works.

See when we stop talking about it it does not slip away it becomes fact. Over time not talking about it we accept alternative facts such as black people just aren’t as intelligent as white people. If literally no one is challenging that “fact” then it simply becomes a fact. Even when untrue. Both blacks and whites come to know it as a fact and no thought is given to it anymore it just is.

So no we cannot solve issues by ignoring them. This is clear. They will continue on as they are if not addressed. That said what we see now is what happens when you do the polar opposite and over react. Affirmative action, Political correctness, these tactics didn’t seem to help more than they did harm. These tactics drove people further away in many cases.

With enough study in sociology you come to realize the only stable effective change is a gradual one. Small but incessant steps. When you see backlash you stop moving and hold fast. But that is not what we have been doing. We tried to march forward and keep marching no matter what, and the result was a huge number of people radicalized in the opposite direction.

Society moves slowly. If you push too hard they panic and react. Each obstacle to progress should be taken down one step at a time not all at once. So when blacks and whites couldn’t use the same services. The first step is you blacks get water fountains too just not the ones we whites use. This people can tolerate. But if you jump right into blacks can use the same fountain your kid drinks out of then you actually go backwards from the overwhelming backlash. It isn’t right and it isn’t fair but it is how society works, it has to move in steps not jumps. Leaps only happen in societies when a great threat terrifies them into compliance.

Instances throughout history of what we now consider to be wrong such as slavery or sexism benefited from discourse from our perspective as liberals because we desired change. If you applied the same logic to Nazi Germany, Political Islam or Communism however, such as discourse about whether Jews were causing all of Germany's problems or whether communism was a realistic Utopian idea worth waging wars over - or indeed the beginning of any idea that we would now dislike, did it not begin with public discourse? Did it not also benefit from small steps rather than large leaps? I understand that your argument from a progressive liberal perspective but what I fear about my generation is that we are not challenging "facts" but rather creating opponents to fight in order as part of human nature. Will a child not seek to differentiate themselves rather than simply agree with their parents?

Like for example if nobody is talking about how whites are more intelligent than blacks, I would say that shows that nobody even thinks that way but you say it needs to be challenged, I think even socially accepted evils are visible but nowadays people talk about internalised misogyny and racism, Islamophobia describes any critique of Islam, transphobia, fascist, mansplaining and other feminist rhetoric. I am not claiming that progress is impossible but when it comes to issues like racism - we all agree we want to get rid of racism to whatever extent is possible. Now I feel like racism is more about critiquing cultural differences and talking about who's fault it is that (insert race) is in a crappy situation and I am really not sure that any of this discussion is conducive to progress at all. The people driving these arguments have no background in sociology, economics, politics or anything - many are young and passionate and naive.

In the past change has been synonymous with progress, I believe in an egalitarian society governed by meritocracy like most people but like many in my generation, I feel like the old liberal ideals are being replaced and now it's basically conservatism because there is much I want to maintain. Even if change is good now, I wonder if conservatism can ever win? In history it never wins and I wonder if change is not something we have done because it was the right thing to do but actually just a pattern throughout human civilisation that we are incapable of stopping. When an issue becomes public discourse - regardless of whether that issue is just or not - I am concerned that change is guaranteed and not selective.

[Eduk]

Reality is the biggest force guiding us in the right direction. Humans might seem hopeless but fortunately over time reality corrects.
We often think irrationality is the surprising position to take, but I actually think it's the opposite. If you consider what we are then rationality is actually the more surprising position. After all by definition we are all insane (just some more so than others).
I recommend a path of pointing out insanity when you see it, especially if you have actual influence in the situation, but not to spend too much time on this endeavour. The majority of your time should be spent on positive actions with positive people. As Grotto pointed out, it's not simple, there is no right answer, just try hard, don't get too depressed, focus your energy on things you can do while never ignoring problems entirely.

[Grotto19]

My degrees are in sociology and psychology so this is right in my wheelhouse. Sadly there is no easy answer to your question. Discourse on contested issues always invokes a backlash. Several Black people have spoken on this such as Morgan Freeman. Claiming that the path to making discrimination go away is to stop talking about it. Not only because talking about it enflames those opposed but also because it reinforces the idea there is a fundamental difference and distinction between whites and blacks. He is not wrong about this but he is naive in his knowledge of how society works.

See when we stop talking about it it does not slip away it becomes fact. Over time not talking about it we accept alternative facts such as black people just aren’t as intelligent as white people. If literally no one is challenging that “fact” then it simply becomes a fact. Even when untrue. Both blacks and whites come to know it as a fact and no thought is given to it anymore it just is.

So no we cannot solve issues by ignoring them. This is clear. They will continue on as they are if not addressed. That said what we see now is what happens when you do the polar opposite and over react. Affirmative action, Political correctness, these tactics didn’t seem to help more than they did harm. These tactics drove people further away in many cases.

With enough study in sociology you come to realize the only stable effective change is a gradual one. Small but incessant steps. When you see backlash you stop moving and hold fast. But that is not what we have been doing. We tried to march forward and keep marching no matter what, and the result was a huge number of people radicalized in the opposite direction.

Society moves slowly. If you push too hard they panic and react. Each obstacle to progress should be taken down one step at a time not all at once. So when blacks and whites couldn’t use the same services. The first step is you blacks get water fountains too just not the ones we whites use. This people can tolerate. But if you jump right into blacks can use the same fountain your kid drinks out of then you actually go backwards from the overwhelming backlash. It isn’t right and it isn’t fair but it is how society works, it has to move in steps not jumps. Leaps only happen in societies when a great threat terrifies them into compliance.

Instances throughout history of what we now consider to be wrong such as slavery or sexism benefited from discourse from our perspective as liberals because we desired change. If you applied the same logic to Nazi Germany, Political Islam or Communism however, such as discourse about whether Jews were causing all of Germany's problems or whether communism was a realistic Utopian idea worth waging wars over - or indeed the beginning of any idea that we would now dislike, did it not begin with public discourse? Did it not also benefit from small steps rather than large leaps? I understand that your argument from a progressive liberal perspective but what I fear about my generation is that we are not challenging "facts" but rather creating opponents to fight in order as part of human nature. Will a child not seek to differentiate themselves rather than simply agree with their parents?

Like for example if nobody is talking about how whites are more intelligent than blacks, I would say that shows that nobody even thinks that way but you say it needs to be challenged, I think even socially accepted evils are visible but nowadays people talk about internalised misogyny and racism, Islamophobia describes any critique of Islam, transphobia, fascist, mansplaining and other feminist rhetoric. I am not claiming that progress is impossible but when it comes to issues like racism - we all agree we want to get rid of racism to whatever extent is possible. Now I feel like racism is more about critiquing cultural differences and talking about who's fault it is that (insert race) is in a crappy situation and I am really not sure that any of this discussion is conducive to progress at all. The people driving these arguments have no background in sociology, economics, politics or anything - many are young and passionate and naive.

In the past change has been synonymous with progress, I believe in an egalitarian society governed by meritocracy like most people but like many in my generation, I feel like the old liberal ideals are being replaced and now it's basically conservatism because there is much I want to maintain. Even if change is good now, I wonder if conservatism can ever win? In history it never wins and I wonder if change is not something we have done because it was the right thing to do but actually just a pattern throughout human civilisation that we are incapable of stopping. When an issue becomes public discourse - regardless of whether that issue is just or not - I am concerned that change is guaranteed and not selective.

You keep referencing Nazi Germany and Communism so I will use them as my examples. Both Emerged in a very short span of time, and both saw a radical push back against them. Only confirming what I said regarding social change needs to be steady and stop when too many people are “triggered”, push beyond that point and the backlash will create strife. If you imagine that all the constant propaganda actually makes the citizen’s content it does not, and even if it did that would not be social change merely a temporary brainwashing. If you release the North Koreans into the world right now for one year most if not all would not return to North Korea when granted the option. You may as well add ISIS to your list. And there again we see radical shifts in social norms which the locals capitulate to and the rest of the world vehemently opposes. It is simply too radical, too much (and in this case too also in the wrong direction).

Communism in its true form is actually far more “right” and noble than capitalism (however most people have no read Marx other than snippets and mistake what communism is supposed to be). But it was far too radical then and still is now. Even Norway is still unready to handle that shift in society. Though they are much closer than my people (Americans) who would reject it taking to the streets with torches and bombs if it were voted in here. Marx himself knew that no society could transition to communism before first being completely socialist. I suspect

Marx agrees with me that such dramatic change will crumble before it could ever stabilize. And history shows it did. Real communism was approached in the beginning in Russia, and the unrest allowed for a swift removal of their communist leader and a replacement who maintained order only through an Irion fist and atrocities. Rule by fear. And they at that point were no longer communist all the principles of communism Marx expressed were largely tossed aside. The form of rule which emerged was not communism it was Autocratic Socialism.

Similarly in all the Middle Eastern nations we try to convert to Democracy from Dictatorship the same problem emerges. They simply cannot handle that big of a change without moving through the spaces in between. People must adapt to something like constitutional monarchy, then an oligarchic republic (which is as far as we got have no illusions we are no democracy), then perhaps on to a representative republic (which we claim to be but are not), then finally perhaps ready to become an actual Democracy. But before you think ah Democracy then is the Aces bear in mind Socrates spelled out quite well its flaws and how it drives us back to Tyranny. Which like any circle of progress you wish to pause at the end not complete it being back at the beginning.

I happen to agree with Socrates on this Democracy is not the solution or the “high value” we should aspire to. Most men are daft when it comes to actual matters of politics just as I am daft when it comes to flying a plane. I have a bit of knowledge regarding aerodynamics and might be able to fly it with some coaching, but give the wheel to enough idiots and were are going to crash. Would you board a plane where everyone gets a chance to fly it, or would you rather be on one where only licensed pilots get the opportunity to fly it? Democracy allows every idiot to have a voice on matters they don’t know about nor understand. And you see the result, a gridlocked set of leaders that can get little done. And that is the inevitable outcome of any Democratic system that does not continue progressing. Let all the idiots have an equal say and you will always end up in gridlock. Just as sports fans will never arrive at a consensus about which team is the best or who is the best quarterback despite the fact none of them play football. They could listen to professionals, but if you give them a vote they will just stick with their team.

[Sy Borg]

Due to leadership whose future vision is measured in political terms, it's clear that most of society's problems will simply have to solve themselves over time. It will not be pleasant for most, but assuredly effective.

Note that the US is going through the usual end-of-empire meltdown. It's been so dominant for so long that, in lieu of competition, it focused on internal competition. Now the divisions are fracturing the nation at a critical time where the world's economy is rapidly reforming. So it goes.

It's ironic that those in dictatorships dream of democracy while those in democracies dream of dictatorships. Personally I'd be happy with a political knowledge and understanding test. I agree with the above writer that completely ignorant people should not have the same say as those with informed opinions. It's very postmodern and thus unrealistic. Flying a plane was a good analogy. Maybe, as with driving, at voting age one won't automatically become eligible to vote but need to pass a test? That might have saved me making some dud votes in my early years. For years I didn't even know the differing function of the federal or state governments. No idea.

For mine, if a person has no clue what they are voting for and just copying their partner, friends, family or political polemicists, then they should not vote. Otherwise they just become amplifiers for dominant personalities. I would love to see such a test implemented. I wonder how many would put massive thought and effort into trying to cheat rather than channelling even a fraction of that energy into learning so as to legitimately pass?

[Judaka]

The history of the West is a history where liberal thought has a stream of countless victories and the history of the world is a history where the West forced their standards upon others in many respects and those nations have also lead to some degree of progress. Nazi Germany and Communist Russia had their beginnings before Hitler and Stalin, fascistic thought and communism did have time to ferment and spread but they were transient and perhaps bad examples. My argument isn't that progress over a short period of time will be less offensive, turbulent and with less chance of success than gradual progress but rather that progress as far as liberal thought goes has about reached its end in the West. In fact I would argue that democracy is the best style of governance precisely because of how ineffective it is, that gradual change is assured and radical thought is curtailed substantially compared to the history of the 20th century in Europe, China, The middle east, Japan and etc. So I agree that gradual change is good in of itself but not that all it produces is good, perhaps it is more likely to be good because opportunities arise for us to question, inquire, predict and that may be the problem that we are facing now - that things are moving too fast and it is this recklessness that concerns me.

History does not seem cyclical in essence but in method, Western history has consisted of mainly the removing of shackles curtailing individual sovereignty, this included social reform, political reform and particularly rights and protections afforded to everyone that allowed for movement free of restriction. Outlaw slavery, develop workers rights, civil rights and social freedom and I feel that most people still talk in these terms. The goal being to afford everyone the freedom of choice without resistance by uncontrollable characteristics like race, culture, religion, sexual orientation or expression of self and other such characteristics (although this is now subsuming also controllable characteristics, or challenging what we understand by uncontrolled and this is a problem for me). Whether it is legislative or "cultural marxist" oppression, whether we are oppressed by our unfortunate socioeconomic circumstances, the goal is to offer public assistance, acceptance and empowerment. This kind of freedom requires capitalism because it promotes individuality, individual choice and freedom - the freedom to do as we please, possess what we please and in an environment with many options. This is - as I see it - the essence of Western culture and we have been heading towards this destination for over one thousand years and for me, now that we have reached a point within medicine, science, economics, socially and legislatively that the true nihilistic freedom that can be attained my concern is that we do not know how to stop. We will always seek to do things better and to do them differently and up until now this had a somewhat distinguishable pattern both in its liberal nature and in the various oppositions to that movement of which I list Nazism and Communism as modern and famous examples. However I fear that my generation is now crossing past what I have viewed as the end goal of the liberal movement into a departure from grounded desire in the sovereignty of the individual and its requirements into a paradoxical ideology where freedom is not a means to end but an end in of itself. And to pursue this freedom of freedom that shines so much more brightly than all of the liberal thought that seemingly came to us hand-in-hand with other kinds of progress and development and of which we saw rewarded through all the advancement required to reach this goal, now we must sacrifice freedom to attain freedom.

That the resistances for women in the next ordination of their pursuit to true freedom now requires more and more of men in what amounts to an ever growing and extensive set of rules for men - denying the results of their own freedoms. That in order for (in example) less common or stigamitzed body types that are considered unattractive to overcome this obstacle in their freedom and happiness people must lose the right and freedom to discriminate against them. That censorship of speech is required in order to allow marginalised people the opportunity to express themselves without fears that would curtail their freedoms. For me it seems at times reasonable and at others invasive and paradoxical but this is all subjective and a matter of principle, I cannot create any kind of rule for that. Ultimately some freedoms do need to be sacrificed and perhaps we've yet to reach the point where enough has been sacrificed and that there is still substantial progress to be made. However for me along side of the West's history for individual freedom has been the process I described in my original post, that change is inevitable and conservative thought is merely procrastination, when we reach whatever our destination is I fear that the consequences will be catastrophic, if that moment is not already upon us. When conservative thought represents the ideal balance, it will be crushed in spite of that just like all the conservative views that came before it.

[Webplodder]

My degrees are in sociology and psychology so this is right in my wheelhouse. Sadly there is no easy answer to your question. Discourse on contested issues always invokes a backlash. Several Black people have spoken on this such as Morgan Freeman. Claiming that the path to making discrimination go away is to stop talking about it. Not only because talking about it enflames those opposed but also because it reinforces the idea there is a fundamental difference and distinction between whites and blacks. He is not wrong about this but he is naive in his knowledge of how society works.

See when we stop talking about it it does not slip away it becomes fact. Over time not talking about it we accept alternative facts such as black people just aren’t as intelligent as white people. If literally no one is challenging that “fact” then it simply becomes a fact. Even when untrue. Both blacks and whites come to know it as a fact and no thought is given to it anymore it just is.

So no we cannot solve issues by ignoring them. This is clear. They will continue on as they are if not addressed. That said what we see now is what happens when you do the polar opposite and over react. Affirmative action, Political correctness, these tactics didn’t seem to help more than they did harm. These tactics drove people further away in many cases.

With enough study in sociology you come to realize the only stable effective change is a gradual one. Small but incessant steps. When you see backlash you stop moving and hold fast. But that is not what we have been doing. We tried to march forward and keep marching no matter what, and the result was a huge number of people radicalized in the opposite direction.

Society moves slowly. If you push too hard they panic and react. Each obstacle to progress should be taken down one step at a time not all at once. So when blacks and whites couldn’t use the same services. The first step is you blacks get water fountains too just not the ones we whites use. This people can tolerate. But if you jump right into blacks can use the same fountain your kid drinks out of then you actually go backwards from the overwhelming backlash. It isn’t right and it isn’t fair but it is how society works, it has to move in steps not jumps. Leaps only happen in societies when a great threat terrifies them into compliance.

You have a point about gradual change being more effective than sudden change so don't you think the overuse of political correctness in terms of promoting the interests of minority groups just gets people's backs up and in fact causes more harm than good?

[Webplodder]

Due to leadership whose future vision is measured in political terms, it's clear that most of society's problems will simply have to solve themselves over time. It will not be pleasant for most, but assuredly effective.

Note that the US is going through the usual end-of-empire meltdown. It's been so dominant for so long that, in lieu of competition, it focused on internal competition. Now the divisions are fracturing the nation at a critical time where the world's economy is rapidly reforming. So it goes.

It's ironic that those in dictatorships dream of democracy while those in democracies dream of dictatorships. Personally I'd be happy with a political knowledge and understanding test. I agree with the above writer that completely ignorant people should not have the same say as those with informed opinions. It's very postmodern and thus unrealistic. Flying a plane was a good analogy. Maybe, as with driving, at voting age one won't automatically become eligible to vote but need to pass a test? That might have saved me making some dud votes in my early years. For years I didn't even know the differing function of the federal or state governments. No idea.

For mine, if a person has no clue what they are voting for and just copying their partner, friends, family or political polemicists, then they should not vote. Otherwise they just become amplifiers for dominant personalities. I would love to see such a test implemented. I wonder how many would put massive thought and effort into trying to cheat rather than channelling even a fraction of that energy into learning so as to legitimately pass?

Isn't the function of democracy to allow expression of strong beliefs that might otherwise find more destructive expression? You are always going to get dominant personalities persuading other's views but, in the end, it is the individual's choice to do so.

[Eduk]

Small steps and mild changes can cause large reactions. Just read the comments above.
When a minority group reasonably asks for something they are being PC (and even worse liberal, the new communism?) and held up as the most outrageous attack on everything (by some). What is actually being asked for? I keep asking what are the specific PC policies which have caused real and actual harm?
Don't get me wrong I don't support all people who call themselves liberal, or who call themselves a minority. I judge people and cases on a case by case bases. I find a lot of people wholly hypocritical, for example the United Humanists (Facebook page) often has articles that have nothing to do with the stated philosophy of humanism and are against the stated aims of the humanist society. But what are my conclusions? That people can be hypocritical, it's not exactly news.

[Webplodder]

Small steps and mild changes can cause large reactions. Just read the comments above.
When a minority group reasonably asks for something they are being PC (and even worse liberal, the new communism?) and held up as the most outrageous attack on everything (by some). What is actually being asked for? I keep asking what are the specific PC policies which have caused real and actual harm?
Don't get me wrong I don't support all people who call themselves liberal, or who call themselves a minority. I judge people and cases on a case by case bases. I find a lot of people wholly hypocritical, for example the United Humanists (Facebook page) often has articles that have nothing to do with the stated philosophy of humanism and are against the stated aims of the humanist society. But what are my conclusions? That people can be hypocritical, it's not exactly news.

Well, I think people are prepared to give anyone credit if they can demonstrate a competency in whatever it is they are seeking recognition in rather than just being handed equality on PC grounds.

[Eduk]

Can you give an example please.
Everyone would agree that reasonable requests are reasonable and unreasonable requests are unreasonable. That is trivially true.

[Webplodder]

Can you give an example please.
Everyone would agree that reasonable requests are reasonable and unreasonable requests are unreasonable. That is trivially true.

Things like introducing quotas that ensure certain minority groups are represented, regardless of whether such groups satisfy the standards required.