Saturday, March 26, 2016

'Problematic' Problematc

   That's a stupid title because it's not a fair characterization of this, which is on the money as far as it goes.
   The neo-PCs' favorite term of criticism is 'problematic.' I've complained about this at some point in the past but I'm too lazy to look it up. I complain about it in real life anyway, even if I'm wrong about having complained about it here...but I'm not. Wrong. Anyway.
   The most obviously moronic thing about the PC / SJW use of 'problematic' is that it's so vague. As Swenson notes, it's really used to indicate that something has done moral harm. And since the PCs really only recognize racism, sexism, homophobia, and their other preferred crimes as moral harms, that's what's really being suggested. So it ought to be said clearly, at the very least.
   Now that I write that, I realize that I'm way to tired to be writing (or 'righting', as I originally wrote (or 'rote'...)) this and I think I'm forgetting the details of Swenson's argument...but, hell, you can read so what are you looking here for? Go read it.
   It's baffling to me that nobody seems to remember paleo-PC. The paleo-PC's all-purpose term of disapproval was 'offensive.' "That's offensive" was their battle cry. 'Problematic' is the neo-PC / SJW's all-purpose term of disapproval, and "that's problematic" is their battle cry. Consequently, both terms have been ruined for me. Are you happy now, you jackasses? I hope you're happy. You jackasses. I don't get offended so easily, so that word's not a huge loss...but damn, 'problematic' was a pretty useful word.
   Why do the PCs invariably have to choose stupid terminology? What is it? What is it about their terminological preferences that are so unwaveringly annoying? I've speculated before that it's something like: they pick terms that sound technical in a bad-Continental-philosophy kind of way...but which are typically off-target in some way or another. The paleo-PCs insisted on 'partner' (as opposed to e.g. 'girlfriend' or 'boyfriend'...which, admittedly, sound a bit juvenile...but whatever...)  But 'partner' is absurdly non-specific. Business partner? Partner in crime? Study partner? What? I referred to my MMA training partner as my "partner" once and got some funny looks for it... Annoyed by the term, I used to refer to my gf who lived with my as my "roommate," which I thought much a much more defensible term. I once got semi-seriously criticized for it by some of the feminists in my cohort. "What?" I said, as I often do, all innocent-like. "How are people supposed to know whether you are involved with someone or not?" they complained.  "Who cares?" I asked. And "why is it anyone else's business." Ha ha! I was such a scamp... See how I out-themed them? Ha!
   But where was I?
   Oh, yeah. The PCs like to pretend that they have a kind of superior technical vocabulary for this stuff, but their terms are almost invariably less precise than those they are supposed to replace. And their terminological nonsense usually seems intended to skew discussions in their favor.  Just as one example, consider "microaggression," which is invariably used to describe annoyances and peccadilloes that cannot by any reasonable person be described as aggressions. The point is to kick up a cloud of absurdity and sneak in the substantial point that small deviations from PC best-practices = violence.
   Anyway.

[link  via the philosophymetametametablog, that collection of rapscallions...]

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home