Political Correctness is Going to Destroy US

Dang, I've learned a lot just from hanging on ATS for a few days, haven't checked in here for a couple months.

A fellow forum member sent me this well written documentary that explains the ideology and end-game behind Political Correctness...I highly recommend checking it out...

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Astyanax

What is driving the Muslim negativity today that really wasn't there in the past?

I take it you mean Muslim ‘negativity’ towards the West?

It goes both ways, but I happen to be in the West.

You do like painting with a broad brush, don’t you? I spent some years working in the Middle East where most of the Arab expatriates I knew were very fond of Western culture and quite keen to migrate to Europe or North America.

I use a broad brush when needed, but I'm not using a 1.3 billion person wide brush just ones that go 100,000s or a few million wide. You say you know some that would like to be westernized so how does that play across the vast majority that do not. I got a few years in the middle east too. I really do not care if they want to be or not, it is up to them. But I do have issues with extremism within their culture, just as they may have with ours, but I happen to be on this side of the picket fence.

If you are talking about some Muslims’ ‘negativity’ (I would use a stronger word) toward the West, it is a simple reaction to being dominated and dispossessed by Europeans and Americans since well before the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The West has a long history of bullying and stealing from the people of the Middle East. ‘Negativity’ towards thieves and bullies is quite natural reaction, don’t you think?

Sucks to pick the wrong side of the war... But this is a lot like the issues with blacks in America where in both cases their worst enemies are within their own racial groups. Black on black crime, and Muslim against Muslim in a continuous war. I'm not going to debate why they may hate us, but there are a large number of Muslim extremist in the world that would like to do us harm, and they have a large number of supporters too.

or in their culture.

I would say most of it is culture, yes. Cultures that allows for what I wrote above. Now I love different cultures, I really do, and I have been all over the world and truly enjoy living in other places, but that doesn't mean all aspects of a culture are good, even our own in America.

originally posted by: Astyanax
You return to those who were wronged what was taken from them, or make redress in other appropriate ways. Those who currently possess what was taken may have to give it up; but this is not wrong. It is simply the repossession of stolen property, to which the holder has no right anyway.

If we were to entertain your idea, where would all people living now (who, by your own admission, did not do anything wrong themselves) go if land were returned to the "original" owners?

How exactly do we determine who owns land anyway? No people have a claim to certain land. It is acquired by force and maintained by security. It's strange how land ownership only applies when it's white people doing the dispossession isn't it?

Nobody is suggesting that people alive today be punished for what their forebears did; merely that they must do without the advantages they have hitherto enjoyed as a result of those deeds.

You are very unclear about how to actually enforce those ideals of yours. How do we go about making them "do without the advantages they have hitherto enjoyed as result of those deeds?"
What exactly are you implying we do?

Because the legacy of cultural deracination, chattel slavery and over a century of oppression and second-class citizenship are not put aside in a generation or two. Other groups do not have that past, so the comparison you make is irrelevant.

Again, you are living in the past trying to justify current problems in the black community. Of course some problems can be traced back to the elements you mentioned, but definitely not all. And black people are far from the only people to have suffered a negative past.

Apologize, make redress and level the playing field for all communities.

That's actually been done in Australia and it doesn't seem to have worked. Kevin Rudd apologised officially on behalf of all Australians for the treatment of aboriginals, lots of money has been spent on their communities and even positive discrimination in favour of them is encouraged.

What more can be done in this regard if the current actions are not having a significant effect?

No. The ‘internal issues present in that population’ are black people’s business, not yours. If you are American but not black, your job is as stated in my answer to your previous question above.

Um, the internal issues facing the black population is the business of other Americans if they are the ones forking out money or investing time in trying to help fix them. Plus, when negative behaviour of that community has such a detrimental effect on the well-being of people of other communities, then it most certainly is the business of non-black Americans.

It seems you have no problem with dispossessing and discriminating against those whose ancestors are accused of dispossessing and discriminating against other groups you want to protect. Can you not see the strong irony in that?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
People calling the "PC crowd" bigoted, people massively generalizing. Oh the irony. -sigh-

I will repeatedly state: the issue is that no one actually knows what "PC" is. There isn't a universal definition we share.

What you fail to see [completely ignorant to] Is that at first there was no such thing as a PC crowd. Had anyone told me about their very liberal thoughts, I may have called them a Hippy. But never would I have called them bigots.

THAT came about to make an example of what the PC crowd did to the rest of the people.
They don't know me or the thousands of others, yet all over the internet, when we asked questions or had opinions they don't like, out came the insults such as racist, xenophobe, bigot...FROM the PC crowd TO the rest of the world.

Now we are taking your words and turn them onto you to show you how rude and false these words are. They hurt don't htey when they are not true?

You don't seem to understand that it is a reaction to your own behaviour. Or in Playground speech: "You started it" or "taste of your own medicine".

a reply to: Astyanax

If it were a case of me making an actual demand of society instead of a suggestion to a fellow member I'd agree. People are going to say what they mean to say. That includes me I guess. If I could do more? I wouldn't change the rules - I'd have it just the way it is now

People are free to say what they want to say

It’s actually nonsense to say that political correctness, by anybody’s definition, prevents such things from being discussed.

So, let's discuss. Reminding people that we shouldn't make generalizations is now political correctness. It's the idea of the word some - not the use of the word itself that I think is important. If my contribution to the discussion has been reduced to annoying nonsense (or, it's become an even a bigger problem) what am I left with? Should I keep quiet?

That's where we are now - isn't it?

Arab immigrants it is - not just some. This is going to go how it's going to go

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
People calling the "PC crowd" bigoted, people massively generalizing. Oh the irony. -sigh-

I will repeatedly state: the issue is that no one actually knows what "PC" is. There isn't a universal definition we share.

Google

The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived
to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged
or discriminated.

Collins English Dictionary

Adj. If you say someone is politically correct you mean that they are
extremely careful not to offend or upset any group of people
in society

Urban Dictionary top definition

A way we speak in America so we don't offend whining pussies.
Only pathetically week people that don't have balls to say what they feel and mean
are pc pussies

en.wikipedia.org...

Take your pick! that should help?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Indigo5

Think that is a reach. I do think there is a value in qualifying what you mean when discussing groups of people.

When you say bears sh87 in the woods...it's safe to assume you mean "all".

I agree to a point, but PC takes the statement "most terrorist these days are Muslim" to mean "most Muslim these days are terrorist". One is a true statement and the other one is not.

Not to be argumentative...but I haven't seen that? It is absolutely true to say that in 2016 "Most terrorists are Muslim"...it is also absolutely true to say "Most Muslims (by an overwhelming majority) are not terrorists". Smart people can accept both those truths and address the issue from there.


I haven't seen any public discourse where the PC police push back on the statement "Most terrorists are Muslim".

Really so you do not think culture and beliefs has anything to do with terrorism? I think it is very important why terrorist are within a group. It is also important in how people identify themselves too.

I think Tyrannical oppressive governments, and poor economic opportunities and bombed out warring regions create terrorists...add to that that 5% of the world population falls diagnostically on the sociopath spectrum. You get general terrorism in the middle east plus the call for otherwise non-participant insane people in western countries to join the crazy murder/power frenzy.

Put another way...if the predominant religion of the middle east was Christian...but the governments were still the same (tyrannical and oppressive) and massive swaths of the population were growing up in war zones and severely impoverished...then we would have equal amounts of terrorsits, they would just be ranting about the Old Testament whilst beheading and stoning people.

We can look to the outlier example of Africa + Christian regions...where Christian communities engage in extreme violence, like the Lords resistance Army (Kony) and others.

No..religion is just a psychological façade...There is nothing inherent in Islam (no more so than Christianity) that demands people turn to terrorism.

I see Islam as a tool for terrorists, not a cause.

I agree it is a numbers game but on one side you have a few and on the other side you have 10,000s so which one should we be concerned about?

We should be concerned about ANY of them....regardless of religion. YES...the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim...but we can eradicate Islam from the world...And as certain as the sun will come up tomorrow...a new religious movement of the Sphagetti Monster God etc. will emerge fill the void...We can play religion/ethnic whack-a-mole...cuz Islam does not drive terrorism, it is just the flag these eff-tards have chosen....like every army of psychopaths in history before them. This is not a PC question to me, it is a strategic question...a question of accuracy. Religious debate is a red-herring.

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: reldra
PC may not be what most people think it is. It was given that name as a derisive, bad thing. Why? People who want to act less than human want something to blame. Something, anything. Even if 2 letters is it, they think 'Why not?" it will hide me from looking like a monster.

The problem is, you can't hide. People see you. They see your racism, bigotry, sterotyping, condemnation of entire ethnic groups. It is 2016, not 1942. You can't hide behind something so small.

I'm just against any type of thought policing. I don't want a centrally planned nanny state imposing their hive mind on me.

I hate seeing professors lose their job for challenging their anti-intellectual students. I hate seeing politically correct mobs dox people online so they can pressure their employers to fire them. I'm tired of seeing people lose their business because someone called their yoga studio cultural appropriation.

(A) Not a centrally imposed Nanny State..

(B) You get it right in the second part...

There is a good topic to be sliced out here in how much of the PC phenomena is a result of the rise of the internet...

Twitter, FB, the race for click-through, high volume headlines that push buttons in people..

The speed at which local stories become national headlines and are nationally debated...with hundreds of thousands of people screaming on the internet? It did not exist in this form 10 years ago.

Some principle in some rural small town says something without thinking it through and it is news to 300 Million people within 48 hours..and people are screaming for his head and internet petitions start and reporters are swarming....at least until the next 24 hour news cycle. The internet is a viscous PC beast eating common sense..

Not to say some of it is not justified...if you are seeking to be heard and want national attention...be prepared to receive it, but much of the nonsense we see is just that.

The internet is where the "Hive Mind" and PC Police live IMO.

Cool.
So is it okay for the world to start labelling all white people as rapists and serial killers since white people commit the majority of said crimes?

I like that new car commercial where the guy tears the participant tag off his kids trophy. Parents need to wake up!!

a reply to: Dark Ghost

If we were to entertain your idea, where would all people living now (who, by your own admission, did not do anything wrong themselves) go if land were returned to the "original" owners?

We can entertain my idea without taking it to such absurd extremes. When I said ‘they may have to return what was taken from them’ I was not referring to real estate. If everybody had to go back to their ancestral lands I suppose we should all have to live in Africa.

Reparations can take many forms that do not infringe on property rights or any other rights. Surely the point of making good is lost if you must do wrong to others in order to accomplish it?

Black people are far from the only people to have suffered a negative past.

Do you know of any other large group that have suffered the burden of chattel slavery on a modern industrial scale? I don’t.

But that’s not the real point. The point is that the negative past, and the suffering it entails, are not just African-Americans’: they’re America’s. The country has a huge, disfiguring stain — a scar — on its character that it is still struggling to come to terms with. I said earlier that this tardiness is an atrocity, a scandal — but it is not anybody’s fault, unless it’s everybody’s fault, black and white and everybody else together. This is how historical process works. It’s erratic. It’s slow. It hurts.

That's actually been done in Australia and it doesn't seem to have worked. What more can be done in this regard if the current actions are not having a significant effect?

There is something important you need to understand. Trying to put historical wrongs right — to the degree that such a thing can be done at all — benefits not only those wronged but equally those who try to make amends. Can you not imagine how much easier you would all breathe if the historical tension and mutual suspicion between white and black were dispersed?

Um, the internal issues facing the black population is the business of other Americans if they are the ones forking out money or investing time in trying to help fix them.

No, they are not. The means of providing support for the resolution of those issues are.

Plus, when negative behaviour of that community has such a detrimental effect on the well-being of people of other communities, then it most certainly is the business of non-black Americans.

I think we can agree on that, at least. But could you provide specific examples of (i) this negative behaviour and (ii) how you think non-black Americans should respond? I suspect your answers might differ substantially from mine.

It seems you have no problem with dispossessing and discriminating against those whose ancestors are accused of dispossessing and discriminating against other groups you want to protect.

Quite a puzzle, that sentence, but I managed to work it out. You are mistaken.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

If my contribution to the discussion has been reduced to annoying nonsense (or, it's become an even a bigger problem) what am I left with? Should I keep quiet?

Reduced by whom? If what you say makes sense, nobody — not even you — can reduce it to nonsense. You may contradict yourself afterwards, but the cogency of your original statement will not be affected. Only your credibility will; then again, we all contradict ourselves from time to time, don’t we?

Should I keep quiet?

Not if you don’t want to. But you must be prepared for the brickbats.

Arab immigrants it is - not just some. This is going to go how it's going to go

Since you posted this, news has broken concerning an official report on the Cologne incidents that seems to be saying that it was ‘almost exclusively’ Arab migrants.

Obviously not all Arab migrants were involved — there are, after all, millions and millions of them. But yes, the bigots and the irredeemably malicious will use this report to make out that all (male) Arabs are lechers and molesters of women. It’s obnoxious — but we can’t stop them, not if we value freedom of speech as highly as we should. All we can do is oppose them — only to hear them wail that they’re being censored by the politically correct liberal police. Can’t do anything about that either.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Astyanax

If it were a case of me making an actual demand of society instead of a suggestion to a fellow member I'd agree. People are going to say what they mean to say. That includes me I guess. If I could do more? I wouldn't change the rules - I'd have it just the way it is now

People are free to say what they want to say

This is already happening though. In Germany right now, they are using Political Correctness to label ideas and opinions about immigration that do not follow their narrative as " hate speech "

It is being used to silence opposition and to silence free speech

speisa.com...

www.breitbart.com...

The term "political correctness" tends to be a weapon of choice used by propagandists who wish to try and make their inherent bigotry seem reasonable by offsetting it against a label that they use against others in an attempt to reinforce their point.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Still trying to figure out what religion has to do with political correctness. Course liberals blabbering nonsense is nothing new, I never expected an answer. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: neformore
The term "political correctness" tends to be a weapon of choice used by propagandists who wish to try and make their inherent bigotry seem reasonable by offsetting it against a label that they use against others in an attempt to reinforce their point.

Political Correctness is a weapon of choice for propagandists to silence opposition by falsely accusing them of hatred, racism, bigotry, oppression.

FTFY

a reply to: Noobarino

But of course you'd say that to try and justify your position.

Any time the term "political correctness has gone mad" is used its a precursor to reinforcing some kind of bigotry.

a reply to: neformore

You are proving my point.

a reply to: MrPlow

I think that's already been done. Check Salon.com.

a reply to: Noobarino

Your point.

See?...What you deem as "politically correct" is entirely based on your own bias. Based on your own viewpoint. With all your inherent thought processes nagging at you, in your surroundings, based on whatever circumstances, ideologies and bias you have found yourself in, or been exposed to.