The secret origins of political correctness

Skyfloating


Those are fantastic examples of PC-Progressivism. You`ll see these new and thoroughly insane ideas pumped into the public mind until people become desensitized to them and accept them as "normal".

The story about the animals bears no resemblance to any kind of progressive rights or social justice campaign and is obviously the preservation of a few crazies.

I might as well post a story about terrorists in Afghanistan killing girls for going to school and blame it on you and other "crazy fascists" (CFs), all together in a conspiracy to crush minorities. That would literally be the equivalent, logically. Naturally I won't though because it would be ABSURD.

Stormdancer777

JuniorDisco
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

So at this point we're basically just linking to every nutty story and pretending it supports the OP's argument?

So you think this idea is nutty?

Are you against human rights for chimps?

Yes. Aren't you?

transethnic
www.modernprimate.com...
Here's one my son told me is now popular in Japan


Otherkin
gawker.com...

He might present as human, yes, but really he's a "fictive and otherkin who, in previous lives, has been a Deku Scrub and a dark elf." He's also "transethnic(Japanese) and andrognous [sic]."

What does this mean? An otherkin is a being born into the wrong body. Not just with the wrong parts, but as the wrong species: people who identify as otherkin believe that they are a wolves, or elves, or really any kind of being, born into a human body.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


So something you've invented called PC is responsible for a tiny number of weird kids who think they are video game characters?

Okay, I'll have a go. Ronald Reagan is responsible for people who think they are tables.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Again, people are losing jobs and having their careers ruined, being shamed, ostracized, ridiculed everyday because they made a mistake, said something that offended someone, told a joke they regret, etc.

Any celebrity who dares tweet something that is not politically correct reaps a "shtstorm" of the PC-Brigade and soon loses his position and honor, now matter how valuable or good is lifes work prior to his little tweet were.

PC is the new tyranny. What used to be Nazism and Fascism has found a new host. Under the guise of "fairness" and "equality" this new host wages vicious attacks on freedom of speech and thought everywhere.

You, in pretending this tyranny does not exist, are its enabler.

Stormdancer777
people who identify as otherkin believe that they are a wolves, or elves, or really any kind of being, born into a human body.

I was wondering what they would go for after making genderlesness "normal"...I guess Japan is ahead of us in some respects. "I self-identify as an elve and want special rights that respect my minority-status".

reply to post by Skyfloating


JuniorDisco has those blinders strapped on tight. PC is not about racial equality or accomodating minorities; it is about restricting thought and preventing the individual from making one's own judgements.

People have a right to choose with whom they associate. Racism is no longer acceptable in mainstream America, and no amount of legislation will force morality on the few racists who remain.
I think if business owners were allowed to freely exercise their right to withhold service, we would hardly notice a change. Sure, a handful of moronic restauranteurs and shop-owners would choose to exclude customers based on race, gender, etc. Those businesses would quickly gain a reputation for being bigoted, and would not last long in the free market.

The PC issue comes down to a central theme in the sociopolitical realm: personal responsibility vs. government mandates.

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

The PC issue comes down to a central theme in the sociopolitical realm: personal responsibility vs. government mandates.

Yah...like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Damn government mandates!

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


It can be argued that the Civil Rights Act was not the primary reason for the changes in racial attitudes that swept the US in the late 1960's. The Congress came in with the Civil Rights Act after social trends were headed in the direction of equal rights. By that point, discrimination and segregation prevailed only in parts of the deep south. Simply making Jim Crowe laws unconstitutional would have accomplished the same positive affects, perhaps without laying a foundation of guilt and resentment.

I first heard this suggested by a black man, by the way.

But I digress. This thread is NOT about race, though accusations of racism are expected to follow any criticism of political-correctness.

OpenMindedRealist
This thread is NOT about race, though accusations of racism are expected to follow any criticism of political-correctness.

Ya think?

Skyfloating
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Again, people are losing jobs and having their careers ruined, being shamed, ostracized, ridiculed everyday because they made a mistake, said something that offended someone, told a joke they regret, etc.

This happens to tiny numbers of people, and often they deserve it. You're desperate to manufacture some sort of pain - crying toddlers, job losing bigots - but actually the 'victims' of a modern sensitivity over words and actions are very rarely anything of the sort.

And the idea that there is some sort of top-down Stalinist imposition of this - well, even your own examples refute that. And then irony upon irony, it's you who want to put people in boxes with labels!

I'm not really sure how you can claim to hold the POV that you do. Perhaps the above poster is right and its just a big old troll fest.

Any celebrity who dares tweet something that is not politically correct reaps a "shtstorm" of the PC-Brigade and soon loses his position and honor, now matter how valuable or good is lifes work prior to his little tweet were.

So basically you just want celebrities to be able to use the N word on twitter? That's the focus of your campaign?

I suppose everyone has to have a cause in life.

PC is the new tyranny. What used to be Nazism and Fascism has found a new host. Under the guise of "fairness" and "equality" this new host wages vicious attacks on freedom of speech and thought everywhere.

So why is it only you who insists on rigidly labelling people here? Why is it your arguments that bear resemblance to those employed in defence of apartheid? And why are your examples of this powerful authoritarian doctrine so often situations where it doesn't succeed?

These aren't rhetorical questions. Although obviously you won't answer them.

You, in pretending this tyranny does not exist, are its enabler.

edit on 4-12-2013 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

I'm not pretending it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. You can't show me it - indeed you can only show me examples where it in fact doesn't happen and some stuff about weird Japanese kids. If you can't demonstrate something is real here's the thing: it probably isn't real.

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

JuniorDisco has those blinders strapped on tight. PC is not about racial equality or accomodating minorities; it is about restricting thought and preventing the individual from making one's own judgements.

People have a right to choose with whom they associate. Racism is no longer acceptable in mainstream America, and no amount of legislation will force morality on the few racists who remain.
I think if business owners were allowed to freely exercise their right to withhold service, we would hardly notice a change. Sure, a handful of moronic restauranteurs and shop-owners would choose to exclude customers based on race, gender, etc. Those businesses would quickly gain a reputation for being bigoted, and would not last long in the free market.

The PC issue comes down to a central theme in the sociopolitical realm: personal responsibility vs. government mandates.

PC isn't real though. You invented it so you could talk about something you're pretending happens. And you're casting this as a freedom of choice issue (via pretending that it's an imposed government diktat) because that's what suits your notion of your own advantage.

Prove me wrong - show me an example of the term used outside of opposition to it as a concept.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


I think Canuck missed my point, but helped make it for me.

Disco -- You continually ignore examples of PC that have been provided by the thread author. Why keep asking for more? Maybe, through some combination of incredible luck and obliviousness, you have never witnessed political-correctness in effect. By your logic, someone who has the good fortune to have never witnessed racism can legitimately deny its existence.

OpenMindedRealist


Disco -- You continually ignore examples of PC that have been provided by the thread author.

You continually ignore the fact that this is absolute nonsense. I have specifically investigated each of the ones he's mentioned since I joined the conversation. They don't in any way add up to the "hundreds" of examples, and in most cases they prove beyond doubt that the status quo is successfully resistant to the wilder demands of loony leftists.

Why keep asking for more? Maybe, through some combination of incredible luck and obliviousness, you have never witnessed political-correctness in effect. By your logic, someone who has the good fortune to have never witnessed racism can legitimately deny its existence.

No. By my logic someone who has never seen "political-correctness" and cannot be shown any examples of it could legitimately deny its existence.

Note I am not saying that there are not occasional ridiculous pronouncements from idiotic leftists. I am arguing with the specific allegation that they represent a concerted, powerful attack endorsed by the status quo and authorities. No example has proved this because it simply isn't true.

Americas unhealthy obsession with race, gender, sex, class, as evidenced by daily news items arguing about "whether Santa Claus is black or white" is a direct result of long-time Soviet Programming. The KGBs goal was to make America preoccupied and go crazy with issues of race, gender, sex, class. The "left" and the "right" in America have been contaminated by the virus to a point where there is almost no turning back.

Skyfloating
Americas unhealthy obsession with race, gender, sex, class, as evidenced by daily news items arguing about "whether Santa Claus is black or white" is a direct result of long-time Soviet Programming.

Seems to have been going on since the day the Puritans hit the beach. I think the whole KGB premise is nonsense and all that discussion does is to distract people from just treating each other with respect.

JohnnyCanuck

I think the whole KGB premise is nonsense

Then you submit that hundreds of KGB defectors, historians, intelligence analysts and investigative journalists cited in the three threads of this series are are all either wrong or liars.

reply to post by Skyfloating


You do enjoy overstating the volume of your data, don't you? Not to mention what it actually says.

According to you a few commies saying they said nasty stuff about America (no, really??) equates to the creation of an authoritarian regimen of groupthink that you can't even prove exists. You're adding 1 and 1 and getting six hundred and thirty four.

JuniorDisco


You do enjoy overstating the volume of your data, don't you?

Overstating? I dont think so. In our new fascist tyranny, anyone whose views differ from the consensus, instantly lose their job. Here Phil Rpbertson dares to express Christian Morals. The result? He loses his position, his career is over.

It does not matter whether his views are correct or not. What matters is that he can no longer express non-PC views without losing it all.

Tyrants.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Every individual human being has their own personal moral code (what is right and what is wrong in their eyes; what is offensive and what is not offensive to me).

What makes war among men is when one personal moral code is at odds with another personal moral code; and one of the parties decides because your moral code offends my moral code (which is more RIGHT then your moral code = lifting up with PRIDE) you are not allowed to live by your moral code anymore.

Prov 14
"There is a way which seems right to a man (personal moral code) but the end of which is destruction (war/death)."

Only if all mankind changed their personal moral code can mankind learn to find peace among men. Unfortunately this age is not that time, and so mankind continues to be at war, till thy Kingdom Come.

God Bless,