The secret origins of political correctness

OpenMindedRealist

They complain that they aren't allowed to honestly judge the actions (and therefore merit) of a person because said person happens to be of a certain race, nationality, religion, gender, or sexuality.

Best example is Obama, who I recently criticized. Someone then, to invalidate my statement, said I criticize him because he is black. But his skin color has nothing to do with it. There have also been times I praised Obama. So the "race card" which the PC overuses is here meant to stifle accurate judgment or criticism based on some "poor black victim" idea.

EarthCitizen07
What about calling crimes as scandals for politicians and bankers?

Is this political correctness or something else?

Good catch...calling them "scandals" when they are heinous crimes is also slightly reality-distorting
and very similar to what Im complaining about here.

What about using the word incorrect rather than wrong?

What about using the word understand rather than comprehend?

(wink, wink)

Those are too soft to be of seriously manipulative consequences imo. The examples given in this thread are so extreme that they start manpulating the publics perception of reality, whereas these examples are soft every day re-labelings.

The way we label things determines the way we FEEL about them and PERCEIVE them. Re-labeling things is not inherently bad. It becomes bad when its done with things that are truly detrimental or bad.

WilsonWilson
The origins of PC, was a well intentioned one.

No it wasnt. It was created in a KGB Laboratory as a Weapon.

WilsonWilson


I could see using wait people, like in a staff meeting.
But on an individual basis, someone is a waiter or waitress.
that would be technically correct.
Although wouldnt you just call them serving staff, or customer facing staff.
Correct terms already exist without making up a new one.

The PC-objection was to calling them "waiters" when referring to them as a group. PC would like us to say "Waiters and Waitresses" or "Wait Persons" or "Wait People". Saying "Waiters" is supposedly misogynistic. Personally I would probably say "Waiters and Waitresses" but I have a hard time believing there are hyper-sensitives worrying about this stuff and going public about it.

tadaman


American progressive culture and most socialist and all communist ideologies are fascist in nature.

Throughout History all essentially evil and genocidal movements were collectivist. Nazism/Fascism was collectivist. Communism/Socialism was collectivist. The collectivist movement is never concerned with individual responsibility but always with what "others are supposed to do and think", what the collective is supposed to think and do. Sadly, they are at it again. Today they are called "Progressives".

JuniorDisco
Sure, the odd radical finds some weird axe to grind but usually

- it's massively overstated
- they are weird outliers

America is one of the least racist countries in the world. Statistically, India is the most racist. And yet many think its "commonly known" that America is "one of the most racist".

Thats not just a weird outlier. Thats the result of many decades of PC-Propaganda.

reply to post by Skyfloating

America is one of the least racist countries in the world. Statistically, India is the most racist. And yet many think its "commonly known" that America is "one of the most racist".

Thats not just a weird outlier. Thats the result of many decades of PC-Propaganda.

To be fair, the perception of the USA as being a racist society probably has something to do with The Indian Wars, Indian Reservations, Civil War partly to do with slavery, segregation on buses, cafe's etc, Klu Klux Klan, White / Black Supremecists blah blah blah.

The point is there are many aspects of US culture and society that have been and in some cases remain blatanly and overtly racist.

The fact that some perceive the USA as being a racist society isn't solely down to PC-Propoganda, (granted, it's certainly contributed to it, as with all good lies, it's based on truths).

reply to post by Freeborn


Certainly. But racist incidents do not make a country as a whole or as a majority racist. Here is some contrasting:

USA: Half-Black President

India: Blacks considered "lowest caste" / outcasts

USA: Most Multicultural and Multi-Ethnical Country on Earth

Any European Country: Non-Multi-ethnical.

USA: More Black Hollywood, Music and Sports Stars than anywhere else

Russia or China: No such thing.

Etc.

And yet...interview 10 000 random people from around the world asking them what country is likely the most racist, and the U.S. will appear high on the list.

reply to post by Skyfloating

Certainly. But racist incidents do not make a country as a whole or as a majority racist.

I agree entirely - just saying that the perception of the USA being a racist society isn't purely down to the PC agenda, some of it is actually based on fact.

As with most things it would help if people actually tried to weigh all the facts up before forming an opinion.

USA: Half-Black President

India: Blacks considered "lowest caste" / outcasts

Indeed.
That paragon of Indian virtue and piety Gandhi despised Black people and thought they were sub-human and should be treat as such - but of course that's not generally mentioned because it doesn't quite fit in to the PC portrayal of Gandhi being a man of peace and whose standards and values we should all aspire to.

USA: Most Multicultural and Multi-Ethnical Country on Earth

Any European Country: Non-Multi-ethnical.

I'd probably agree with the US bit but many European countries are quite multi-cultural and multi-ethnic nowadays.

And yet...interview 10 000 random people from around the world asking them what country is likely the most racist, and the U.S. will appear high on the list.

I guess that would depend where those people were from - I think if you asked most Brits we'd say Eastern Europeans are a damn sight more racist than anywhere else - but that's just a personal opinion and I have nothing to support it with.

Freeborn


I agree entirely - just saying that the perception of the USA being a racist society isn't purely down to the PC agenda, some of it is actually based on fact.

The killing of natives through settlers is a fact, yes. A sad fact of History. I dont disagree with anything you say.

If Im a KGB-propaganda artist, Im going to deal with this fact in the following way:

* Dont mention that settlers were also killed by natives
* Dont mention that many settlers killed in self-defense / survival
* Dont mention that many settlers participated in peaceful negotiation with natives
* Depict settlers as brutal bloodthirsty warlords and natives as peaceful mother-earth protectors
* Label settlers as genocidal lunatics in the context of a broader ideology on evil colonialists who have been spreading misery and evil for millenia

EarthCitizen07

JohnnyCanuck

Often, that's a matter of entomology...Saxon vs Norman.

I assume you mean etymology, not entomology which is the study of insects. Etymology is the study of word meanings.

Stupid, stupid spell check!!!! That really bugs me!! Thanks for catching it!

More to your point...yes, words carry weight, and much of what is considered PC is simple acknowledgement and consideration of that fact. My ex was dismissed from a dental practice for accusing the (Jewish) dentist of being 'too hymie with the painkillers'. Well, duh!

On the other hand, referring to a 'power outage' instead of a 'power failure' certainly is corporate weaseling. And I recall the very day when the CBC stopped talking about 'Afghan freedom fighters' and began to call them 'Afghan rebels'. A not-so-subtle shift in geopolitical semantics.

Sure, PC can descend to levels of absurdity, but on the up side, sometimes we really ought to respect others' feelings when exercising our vocabulary, just to be civil, eh?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Another case of the PC agenda gone crazy.

There is a lot to admire about Native American culture and it's beyond question that they were / are treat appallingly at times.
But their portrayal as being some sort of idyllic culture without malice is as wide of the mark as the one previously peddled as them being backwards savages.

I suspect that as usual the truth lies somewhere in between.

Freeborn

That paragon of Indian virtue and piety Gandhi despised Black people and thought they were sub-human and should be treat as such - but of course that's not generally mentioned because it doesn't quite fit in to the PC portrayal of Gandhi being a man of peace and whose standards and values we should all aspire to.

The denial in this regard is juicy and hilarious.

JohnnyCanuck

Stupid, stupid spell check!!!! That really bugs me!! Thanks for catching it!

I bet it does. It slightly altered my perception of you, downwards. Just goes to show how a slight change of word can alter perception.

reply to post by tadaman


That's just total nonsense. Sorry.

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco
it is discriminating against people because of the way they look. Why would anyone think that was a good thing?

If I am unable to discriminate between angel and monster, I`ll soon be eaten alive. Life is no Junior Disco.

Ooops...I just said something very not politically correct...that there are angels and monsters...I hope the thought-Police doesnt break down on me.

edit on 23-11-2013 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

You're just making this up. Nothing in any reasonable person's definition of non-discriminatory language or action suggests not being able to judge people for doing wrong.

The MSM has invented a big straw man and you've been taken in.

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco
Sure, the odd radical finds some weird axe to grind but usually

- it's massively overstated
- they are weird outliers

America is one of the least racist countries in the world. Statistically, India is the most racist. And yet many think its "commonly known" that America is "one of the most racist".

Thats not just a weird outlier. Thats the result of many decades of PC-Propaganda.

You've missed my point. And are making a very strange, unsourced and unrelated one in return.

Skyfloating

tadaman


American progressive culture and most socialist and all communist ideologies are fascist in nature.

Throughout History all essentially evil and genocidal movements were collectivist. Nazism/Fascism was collectivist. Communism/Socialism was collectivist. The collectivist movement is never concerned with individual responsibility but always with what "others are supposed to do and think", what the collective is supposed to think and do. Sadly, they are at it again. Today they are called "Progressives".

I'll leave you to it in a minute because I think that's for the best. But you really think that "all essentially evil and genocidal movements were collectivist"?

Just off the top of my head, how about Spanish genocide in South America? Was Elizabethan-era Spain collectivist? Was the British Empire collectivist during the phase when it intentionally starved Indian citizens in their droves? Was Imperial Rome "progressive"?

You're just making stuff up because you don't like lefties.

reply to post by Skyfloating

The way we label things determines the way we FEEL about them and PERCEIVE them. Re-labeling things is not inherently bad. It becomes bad when its done with things that are truly detrimental or bad.

The only way that we can override this innate mechanism of irrational response is through the employment of a system of protocols that leads to rational and logical reasoning and behaviors.

When one looks at advertisements from the early 1900's, the appeal was to the logical and rational sense.
People were much better educated at that point in time.
But as we enter this supposed 'golden age' of technology, the average Western IQ has supposedly dropped 14 points over the last century.
Could this be due to poor education?
The problem might be that we are not necessarily becoming less intelligent, but less educated.

See if you can pass this 8th grade final exam from 1895 Salina, Kansas?

The core appeal at the heart of the concept of public relations is to the irrational.
That is why the appeal to emotions is nearly always the ploy.
Shaving Cream is not sold by examining its benefit to a man's face, but to make him more attractive to women.
Laundry Detergent is not sold by examining its benefit to cleaning clothes, but to make a woman more efficient.
Emotions are irrational and the behaviors that result solely from the response to emotions are equally as irrational.
That is why tyranny is always sold to the people as safety.
War equals peace, yada...yada....

Naomi Klein does a great job deconstructing this creature of the corporate advertising industry, branding, in her book No Logo.
But the sad part about all of this theoretical, corporate lingo-mumbo-jumbo is that no one cares anymore.
Branding: a concept that made me want to vomit when I was first exposed has become-
Self-Branding: a concept that has developed out of our interaction with social media and our moral code embedded into our minds as children by advertisements that bombard our daily lives.

People are willingly embracing the morals of a corporate society. Willingly.

JuniorDisco

Skyfloating

tadaman


American progressive culture and most socialist and all communist ideologies are fascist in nature.

Throughout History all essentially evil and genocidal movements were collectivist. Nazism/Fascism was collectivist. Communism/Socialism was collectivist. The collectivist movement is never concerned with individual responsibility but always with what "others are supposed to do and think", what the collective is supposed to think and do. Sadly, they are at it again. Today they are called "Progressives".

I'll leave you to it in a minute because I think that's for the best. But you really think that "all essentially evil and genocidal movements were collectivist"?

Just off the top of my head, how about Spanish genocide in South America? Was Elizabethan-era Spain collectivist? Was the British Empire collectivist during the phase when it intentionally starved Indian citizens in their droves? Was Imperial Rome "progressive"?

You're just making stuff up because you don't like lefties.

edit on 23-11-2013 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)

QUOTED FOR TRUTH! Its amazing that some people are willing to disregard the obvious because they have a right wing agenda. Religion and monarchies have more blood on their hands than all the fascist and communist leaders combined.

Fascism and communism are relatively new to history. Feudalism goes back a long, long time!