Growing up in the suburbs surrounded by middle- to upper-middle class white people, I heard virtually no profanity until middle school. Now I live in a city and take public transit, mostly with poor people, and I hear much more profanity. The age of cell phones also contributes.
It took me a while to get used to the idea of my kids growing up in this environment. But they'll learn when to curse and when not to, same as I did, but at a younger age.
In theory it is, but it would rely on those judging court cases to have knowledge of the relevant social context - which, given that judges are not normally drawn from the 'lower' classes, is a problem.
What makes you think that lower classes "talk more overtly"?
As an outsider, your perspective is going to be skewed. For example, you might not understand the covert layers of what they're saying, or you might not have access to the same kinds of conversations.
As an American living in England for awhile, I found it hard to avoid similar mistakes.
More generally, your writing is good, but contains a lot of confident assertions of breathtaking scope.
Obviously outside the US, but here's an illustration. In case you're in any doubt from the picture, the man imprisoned for writing rude things on facebook is lower class. Basically, two or three generations back, polite protestant society (in Scotland, also to some extent in the US) looked down on Catholics; now it looks down on anti-Catholics.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/u...
I'd say the classism is especially evident in the version of anti-racism which seems to require substantial knowledge about a large number of religions and cultures.
Anti-racist and anti-homophobic education hasn’t had much effect at the bottom.
Even if they have no effect at bottom, they will apply to people trying to rise from the bottom. That means yet another barrier for people trying to become members of higher class. We officially don't have problem with their origin per se, but we can denounce them as racists (or other -ists), thus hypocritically signalling how much we love the disadvantaged people.
"Our society" may (or may not) be construed to mean just the U.S. (since when is vagueness a virtue), but certainly, the U.S. is part of "our society," so these laws can hardly be called "our most visible and well-enforced policies" when they do not exist in here.
And when you consider Europe, a whole different set of considerations come into play than those Hanson thinks about. It's not a matter of helping "low-status" groups but fearing racist propaganda as prolegomena to another holocaust. Said laws did not exist before Germany lost the last world war.
I'd agree. Anti-racist and anti-homophobic education hasn't had much effect at the bottom. The left half of the bell curve are often absolutely brutal in what they say on those subjects. And there doesn't much that can be done about it. They don't depend for employment on the state. They don't care about access to elite institutions. Those who work with lower class people care more about steering them away from much more pressing anti-social behaviours.
Politician's often exempt themselves from restrictions applied to everyone else. It's not a surprise that they did it again, applying the restriction to speech they and their peers do not use.
We are actually free to "express disfavor" about minorities and other protected classes. Taking action and making decisions based on that disfavor is often illegal, but expressing the disfavor is legal.
Since when is "our soceity" something limited just to the USA? In the rest of the Anglo-sphere, the West and much of the modern world such rules are much more common to the point of being nearly universal.
Good point. Political correctness as a differential weapon to silence the lower classes but let the upper classes off scot free.
Growing up in the suburbs surrounded by middle- to upper-middle class white people, I heard virtually no profanity until middle school. Now I live in a city and take public transit, mostly with poor people, and I hear much more profanity. The age of cell phones also contributes.
It took me a while to get used to the idea of my kids growing up in this environment. But they'll learn when to curse and when not to, same as I did, but at a younger age.
In theory it is, but it would rely on those judging court cases to have knowledge of the relevant social context - which, given that judges are not normally drawn from the 'lower' classes, is a problem.
What makes you think that lower classes "talk more overtly"?
As an outsider, your perspective is going to be skewed. For example, you might not understand the covert layers of what they're saying, or you might not have access to the same kinds of conversations.
As an American living in England for awhile, I found it hard to avoid similar mistakes.
More generally, your writing is good, but contains a lot of confident assertions of breathtaking scope.
Obviously outside the US, but here's an illustration. In case you're in any doubt from the picture, the man imprisoned for writing rude things on facebook is lower class. Basically, two or three generations back, polite protestant society (in Scotland, also to some extent in the US) looked down on Catholics; now it looks down on anti-Catholics.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/u...
I'd say the classism is especially evident in the version of anti-racism which seems to require substantial knowledge about a large number of religions and cultures.
Anti-racist and anti-homophobic education hasn’t had much effect at the bottom.
Even if they have no effect at bottom, they will apply to people trying to rise from the bottom. That means yet another barrier for people trying to become members of higher class. We officially don't have problem with their origin per se, but we can denounce them as racists (or other -ists), thus hypocritically signalling how much we love the disadvantaged people.
Without Thom specifying which groups, it's generically plausible.
Then why are libertarians well-paid computer programmers and businessmen, not blacks, the unemployed, the poor, and Mexicans?
"Our society" may (or may not) be construed to mean just the U.S. (since when is vagueness a virtue), but certainly, the U.S. is part of "our society," so these laws can hardly be called "our most visible and well-enforced policies" when they do not exist in here.
And when you consider Europe, a whole different set of considerations come into play than those Hanson thinks about. It's not a matter of helping "low-status" groups but fearing racist propaganda as prolegomena to another holocaust. Said laws did not exist before Germany lost the last world war.
I'd agree. Anti-racist and anti-homophobic education hasn't had much effect at the bottom. The left half of the bell curve are often absolutely brutal in what they say on those subjects. And there doesn't much that can be done about it. They don't depend for employment on the state. They don't care about access to elite institutions. Those who work with lower class people care more about steering them away from much more pressing anti-social behaviours.
Aren't policies more generally used by those in power against disadvantaged groups?
This seems obvious to a libertarian.
Politician's often exempt themselves from restrictions applied to everyone else. It's not a surprise that they did it again, applying the restriction to speech they and their peers do not use.
We are actually free to "express disfavor" about minorities and other protected classes. Taking action and making decisions based on that disfavor is often illegal, but expressing the disfavor is legal.
upper class white man's burden
@Tyrrell McAllister @ Stephen R Diamond
Since when is "our soceity" something limited just to the USA? In the rest of the Anglo-sphere, the West and much of the modern world such rules are much more common to the point of being nearly universal.
The enforcement of laws against racist, sexist, etc. expressions ...
Are there any such laws in the United States? (Echoing Stephen R Diamond ...)