Came across this quote from Theodore Dalrymple and thought it was an interesting take that's pretty applicable today. Don't mean for this to be favoring one political ideology so much as a comment on extremism in general (moderates / reasonable Democrats and Republicans feeling obligated to embrace increasingly fringe positions from the crazy wings of their respective parties).
| +95 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 24 | 4h | |
| +37 | Interviews Are So Fake | 24 | 4h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 20 | 15h | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 10h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 6d | |
| +24 | Non-Competes Banned | 17 | 3s | |
| +22 | Ideas for things to do with a free semester before starting ft? | 9 | 1d | |
| +20 | Sabotaging Peers to Get Ahead? | 34 | 3d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 1d | |
| +17 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 6h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Dalrymple is great, but I mostly disagree with this quote. Propaganda does actually change minds: if you blast a certain message at people constantly, most of them will eventually believe it. The humilation of those who don't is a secondary goal.
I think it's a little more subtle than this. I interpret it as saying the purpose of propaganda is to make it so ubiquitous that even "sane" people feel they need to remain silent and even publicly agree with what they believe privately to be an insane message (think gaslighting before the term was bastardized). Once you can accomplish this, you can get people to buy into any message no matter how absurd.
I feel like we can see this in a lot of political discourse today. Look at the Republican party today -- the Trump wing of the party has beaten and humiliated the moderates into wholeheartedly accepting all sorts of in sane populist bullshit. The woke wing of the Democratic party is doing the same thing.
This to me is the biggest issue with cancel culture -- once the mob decides the "correct" view and publicly cancels people who don't agree, everyone else just decides it isn't worth the trouble and pretends to go along with the woke mob until the idea (which was previously only supported by a tiny minority) suddenly feels mainstream.
Idk if I really embrace this quote, but political correctness and cancel culture by extension are gigantic issues. Even Obama said that people need to quite the woke bullshit fast. It is fucking stupid and it hurts the democrats so much, because people can honestly like a dem over a republican, but struggle to want to support them because of all the PC nonsense the party oozes out. It literally costs us votes.
Aside from being beaten to death on this forum, this is just a dumb take.
Treat people with respect. It's that easy. If someone wants to be referred to by a specific pronoun, use it. If using a particular word that has a negative connotation will piss off lots of people, don't use it. It takes almost zero effort for a reasonable reward, and generally speaking people who make mistakes in good faith aren't particularly punished for it. Being polite costs nothing. And lets be frank, the person who slips into using the "n" word in an off the cuff remark is probably the person who uses it far more often than that. There has never been a time where I caught myself coming even close to using that word by accident. Folks are sensitive about it, or other slurs, because most of them are people who are used to being demeaned by its use.
Besides, your quote is horribly off base because no one is being forced to "lie". What you have described is an accurate summation of the modern American right wing, not the "woke" liberals.
I want to be referred to as "Developer in RE - Comm the Magnificent", and I want you to address me as "Your Majesty".
So, will you do what I want? No, you won't. And you won't because you accept a cultural consensus that these terms have meanings and that they don't apply to me.
To the extent that it's "easy" to "treat people with respect", it's because there's a shared cultural consensus about how we're supposed to behave. About what we owe to others and what we don't. The idea that someone can unilaterally opt out of that consensus, and make arbitrary demands of others by doing so, is a recipe for social chaos.
Right, but you already use "he" or "she" so what does it matter if someone prefers one to the other? If you'd like to refer to yourself with a sobriquet, you are more than welcome to do so.
When that reflects some kind of achievement or actual standing within society, people do use them. Think about a judge, or a doctor, or a professor. People in all of those professions often ask to be referred to with their title. So your point falls on its face right off the bat. No one is asking to be called "Jane the Magnificent and Beautiful Transgender Person," they are asking to be talked about as a woman instead of a man. How does that impact your life, at all?
And how is it arbitrary? Your rather poor example doesn't back up this point, at all. Who is opting out of any consensus? Not the transgender person asking to be referred to by a specific pronoun, any more than a judge insisting on folks in her courtroom using "Your Honor". By your logic, "cultural consensus" breaks down on it's face, because there is a great deal of disagreement about a lot of these terms, even the ones we "accept" as a society. Do you address every person you find unattractive as "ugly"? Of course not, because the minimal amount of effort it takes to lie, outright or by omission, is the basic level of conscientiousness we need to maintain towards each other in order to have a functioning civilization. Similarly, don't use the "n" word. If someone wants to be a "he", call them by male pronouns, even if you don't agree! Again, it's no different than not calling out every flaw on every person you meet, simply because you deem it a flaw. Besides, gender and sex are more complex than that anyway.
Long story short, your example and argument make no sense prima facie, and most people refute your point in the way they interact with others, every single day.
Right, but my question was whether you would address me that way. Suppose we worked in the same company and interacted with each other. In all seriousness: If I identified as a European monarch, would you refer to me using my preferred terminology? Doing so wouldn't impact your life at all, right?
Sure. I've had plenty of coworkers ask me to call them by a last name, or shortened version of their name, or whatever. It's just good manners.
It would color my judgement of you. And I'm sure I'd slip up, because unlike "he" or "she" it's not exactly common to call someone "Your Majesty," but I don't see why it's a huge problem. Probably wouldn't accept an invitation to a party from you, but I've spent most of my life having to call someone by a title that seems unnecessary on it's face, why should this be any different? Besides, you might turn out to be the new Emperor Norton, and I want in on the ground floor of that!
Aut eligendi est numquam vel. A velit est quis perferendis quibusdam voluptas quo suscipit. Asperiores harum et quos sit est. Consequuntur at ex in qui sint facere cumque voluptate. Dolorum cupiditate consequatur sint soluta est omnis sed. Ea voluptas quas unde veniam molestias.
Aliquam sed necessitatibus consequatur laborum cupiditate officia dolores atque. Officiis veniam porro quia ut aliquid. In at voluptate eius.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...