Does the political correctness on the left over-reach, turning people people off and causing them seek out opinions on the far right?

[AdamWho]

There are many issues in the world today that need to be discussed openly but are stifled by political correctness.

The ubiquitous, conversation ending accusation of racism, sexism, what-ever-ism, for instance, can stop many conversations around race, violence, immigration, education and policy issues if there is any hint of non-political-correct component. The same is for anything under the heading of 'intersectional' issues. We simply cannot even have the conversation if one side refuses to talk and respond in good faith to opposing ideas.



I see this as an over-reach on the political left and I think it turns many rationalists off. One blogger noted that this has serious implications beyond internet battles.

For instance, Europe is in a situation where the left will hurl accusations of racism at anyone who questions the wisdom of large scale Muslim immigration. This refusal to have a serious conversation by the left is causing the rise of many far right organizations that have no such fear and are wining the argument with ideas that should be met with a sensible alternative.

I experienced this first hand a couple of months ago when I was looking into debunking the 'big list of crime stats' often posted by stormfront types. Nobody on the rationalist/atheist forum I was posting would even engage on the issue. They consistently fell into fallacies such as 'those guys are bad therefor their stats are wrong' or 'examining racist claims gives them a platform' or 'you are racist for looking into their claims'. They would do anything but actually help debunk the statistics. The result was that people reading the exchange came away with the idea that these racists might have something to their argument.



This type of head-in-the-sand approach across the left in western countries is giving (sometimes far) right political voices the only voice on many issues. I see this as a terrible failure of the left.

Is this a problem, and if so, what should be done?

 

[SimpleDon]

There are many issues in the world today that need to be discussed openly but are stifled by political correctness.

The ubiquitous, conversation ending accusation of racism, sexism, what-ever-ism, for instance, can stop many conversations around race, violence, immigration, education and policy issues if there is any hint of non-political-correct component. The same is for anything under the heading of 'intersectional' issues. We simply cannot even have the conversation if one side refuses to talk and respond in good faith to opposing ideas.



I see this as an over-reach on the political left and I think it turns many rationalists off. One blogger noted that this has serious implications beyond internet battles.

For instance, Europe is in a situation where the left will hurl accusations of racism at anyone who questions the wisdom of large scale Muslim immigration. This refusal to have a serious conversation by the left is causing the rise of many far right organizations that have no such fear and are wining the argument with ideas that should be met with a sensible alternative.

I experienced this first hand a couple of months ago when I was looking into debunking the 'big list of crime stats' often posted by stormfront types. Nobody on the rationalist/atheist forum I was posting would even engage on the issue. They consistently fell into fallacies such as 'those guys are bad therefor their stats are wrong' or 'examining racist claims gives them a platform' or 'you are racist for looking into their claims'. They would do anything but actually help debunk the statistics. The result was that people reading the exchange came away with the idea that these racists might have something to their argument.



This type of head-in-the-sand approach across the left in western countries is giving (sometimes far) right political voices the only voice on many issues. I see this as a terrible failure of the left.

Is this a problem, and if so, what should be done?

Certainly the over reach of the left is something to call out when it happens. I have serious problems with cries against "cultural appropriation."

But i don't see many rational people embracing the load of drivel that is required to be a conservative here in the US because of liberal over reach.

It might be different in Europe where the political spectrum is considerably to the left of nearly the entire spectrum in the US because the US has moved so far to the right. It is a possibility based on my limited experience in the late 1990's when I was living in Europe. But I would expect it to be more because of the overreach of the Greens than of calls about racism.

Racism is real and especially in the US, protected by conservatives.

 

[AdamWho]

It doesn't have to be a complete turning to the right thing.

Even in this forum we see lots of these thought-terminating clichés whenever non-pc topics are discussed. It is a rare voice that puts aside political alligences and focuses on facts and evidence.

 

[J842P]

Racism is real and especially in the US, protected by conservatives.

I shouldn't speak for Adam, but do you really think he would disagree with the statement that racism is a real thing that harms people? Regardless, how would that address the argument he is making?

Here is how I see it. The left, and in particular social-identity, social-justice based strands of the left, tend to not even engage in rational discussions in good faith surrounding anything that could possibly impinge on a non-politically correct component. Instead, they will try to attack the character of anyone who even brings these topics up.

 

[laughing dog]

Racism is real and especially in the US, protected by conservatives.

I shouldn't speak for Adam, but do you really think he would disagree with the statement that racism is a real thing that harms people? Regardless, how would that address the argument he is making?

Here is how I see it. The left, and in particular social-identity, social-justice based strands of the left, tend to not even engage in rational discussions in good faith surrounding anything that could possibly impinge on a non-politically correct component. Instead, they will try to attack the character of anyone who even brings these topics up.

Sort of like you did with your broad brush?

I would say that anyone pushed to the right by "leftishPC" was basically there anyway. I would say that anyone pushed to the left by "rightish PC" was basically there anyway.

 

[AdamWho]

Racism is real and especially in the US, protected by conservatives.

I shouldn't speak for Adam, but do you really think he would disagree with the statement that racism is a real thing that harms people? Regardless, how would that address the argument he is making?

Here is how I see it. The left, and in particular social-identity, social-justice based strands of the left, tend to not even engage in rational discussions in good faith surrounding anything that could possibly impinge on a non-politically correct component. Instead, they will try to attack the character of anyone who even brings these topics up.

To me, the automatic identification with conservative = racist is part of the problem. I suspect that just about anything intruding on non-PC topics is going to be labeled as racist even if that isn't the case. It is a part of a circular argument (racist -> conservative - racist) that doesn't address actual ideas or policy positions.

At a minimum, if you disagree with the policies you need to move past the cliches and address the policies and make a good faith attempt to understand the rational behind them. It is actually VERY rare that people are the evil monsters that the opposition imagines.... and if you hear one side framing the other in those terms, it should make a RATIONALIST very suspicious.

 

[untermensche]

The term "political correctness" is a term that was invented to de-legitimize any and all criticism of behaviors that directly harm others, even verbal behaviors.

It is a brilliant use of language that is in itself incredibly intolerant yet pretends to point towards intolerance.

When people use that term they are not opening up discussion, they are closing it.

 

[ryan]

I think the reason why nobody wants to be negative on unpopular populations is because the answer always ends up being a type of ethnic cleansing. Nobody wants it to come to that because it's ugly, regrettable and is the easy way out. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to start momentum in that direction because once it starts there will be no return. I like that people are trying to bring people up who are down; it's in our nature.

But the problem remains. There doesn't seem to be any good science on this issue. Nobody seems to know what approach should be taken on how to deal with troubled populations within a country. Should they be given some leeway to show that there is "good" on the other side, should everyone be treated the same, a certain mix of both, etc?

 

[repoman]

Maybe it should be about the goals of the left, not the ideology of the left.

Because their may be straight white males who are helpful to the left (out of honest conviction not posturing) and a "minority" who is a real regressive jerk.

I think that excessive identity politics is one of the major problems with the left now. The right has lots more problems, but they make lots of headlines to their websites from crazy identity politics. Some small, carefully vetted level of identity politics was useful in the past and it is likely shrinking all the time.

 

[SimpleDon]

Racism is real and especially in the US, protected by conservatives.

I shouldn't speak for Adam, but do you really think he would disagree with the statement that racism is a real thing that harms people? Regardless, how would that address the argument he is making?

Here is how I see it. The left, and in particular social-identity, social-justice based strands of the left, tend to not even engage in rational discussions in good faith surrounding anything that could possibly impinge on a non-politically correct component. Instead, they will try to attack the character of anyone who even brings these topics up.

I don't expect any reasonable, rational person to accept racism. I don't know Adam from ... well, Adam. I treated his OP and his response about not meaning an over reaching move to the right, as reasonable. Then I agree with him, the excesses of PC is one thing that would push a person to the right.

But I didn't take him as fishing for conservative bias conformation, as you imply, with the right wing jargon filled post of yours above. If your response is what he was after, then he is in the wrong place for that.

Or was your entire post just an exercise in sarcasm, pretending to be rational while presenting this content free broad brush last paragraph, a perfect example of what you are pretending to decry?

 

[J842P]

I shouldn't speak for Adam, but do you really think he would disagree with the statement that racism is a real thing that harms people? Regardless, how would that address the argument he is making?

Here is how I see it. The left, and in particular social-identity, social-justice based strands of the left, tend to not even engage in rational discussions in good faith surrounding anything that could possibly impinge on a non-politically correct component. Instead, they will try to attack the character of anyone who even brings these topics up.

I don't expect any reasonable, rational person to accept racism. I don't know Adam from ... well, Adam. I treated his OP and his response about not meaning an over reaching move to the right, as reasonable. Then I agree with him, the excesses of PC is one thing that would push a person to the right.

But I didn't take him as fishing for conservative bias conformation, as you imply, with the right wing jargon filled post of yours above. If your response is what he was after, then he is in the wrong place for that.

Or was your entire post just an exercise in sarcasm, pretending to be rational while presenting this content free broad brush last paragraph, a perfect example of what you are pretending to decry?

Who is asking anyone to "accept racism?" Where are you reading this?

I'm actually about as left-wing radical as you can get on pretty much every issue. So, I take it we no longer will be able to talk using generalizations, then? Notice, it is not the 'same thing' since I wasn't addressing any particular poster or argument. I am describing a group of people the only way possible, using generalizations. If I had made some generalization about the Tea party, like that they are largely a bunch of no-nothing xenophobes and racists who will eat up any sort of demagoguery promoted by the likes of people like Trump, I'm sure I wouldn't have faced the censure of "broad-brushing" it.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

There is no honest conversation about what can be done with X group, because that conversation would require the question to be asked, "Who can help X group more than X group?" And the answer to that is nobody but X group. But the response to that by the left is to shout it down, call it racist, call it sexist, or whatever "ist" can be conceivably applied.

So why bother getting involved in the conversation in the first place?

The vast majority of people don't want to be called an "ist" of some kind when acting in good faith, so the only intelligent thing to do is walk away and worry about something else. The result is that the problem remains for those who have the biggest problems. The unwillingness to be able to speak honestly about why a condition exists ensures the condition will continue to exist.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

First, if your argument can be shut down simply by calling it racist, your argument deserves to be shut down because your argument is WWEEEAAAKKKK!!!
Second, all over the internet there are these places called "comment sections" whose existence disproves the power of political correctness
Third,

 

[Nexus]

First, if your argument can be shut down simply by calling it racist, your argument deserves to be shut down because your argument is WWEEEAAAKKKK!!!

No argument is shut down by calling it racist. Just as no argument is shut down by any logical fallacy. However it might mean the debater is wasting time with someone if all they do is hurl ad homs.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is clear that there is an attempt to face this problem ... but nobody has the courage to directly name it and confront it. There is a desire that someone from the outside might be willing to take the lead on this.

As Ron Paul said to Rick Perry in the 2012 presidential primaries, "I don't do bailouts." And yet, in the previous thread on this topic I did give you a partial bailout when I posted the Tumblerisms videos as made by the Internet Aristocrat.

Look, if you guys want to talk about the problems with Political Correctness, don't wait for someone like me to give you an example that you can call "not representative." If you want to confront this problem within your own ranks, be brave enough to name it yourself. The most recent season of South Park might be a good place to start. But unless you are willing to actually name those issues within Political Correctness that are held up as problems with it, and admit they aren't parodies, then you won't get anywhere.

 

[laughing dog]

It is clear that there is an attempt to face this problem ... but nobody has the courage to directly name it and confront it. There is a desire that someone from the outside might be willing to take the lead on this.

As Ron Paul said to Rick Perry in the 2012 presidential primaries, "I don't do bailouts." And yet, in the previous thread on this topic I did give you a partial bailout when I posted the Tumblerisms videos as made by the Internet Aristocrat.

Look, if you guys want to talk about the problems with Political Correctness, don't wait for someone like me to give you an example that you can call "not representative." If you want to confront this problem within your own ranks, be brave enough to name it yourself. The most recent season of South Park might be a good place to start. But unless you are willing to actually name those issues within Political Correctness that are held up as problems with it, and admit they aren't parodies, then you won't get anywhere.

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm talking about this thread.

 

[untermensche]

It is clear that there is an attempt to face this problem ... but nobody has the courage to directly name it and confront it. There is a desire that someone from the outside might be willing to take the lead on this.

As Ron Paul said to Rick Perry in the 2012 presidential primaries, "I don't do bailouts." And yet, in the previous thread on this topic I did give you a partial bailout when I posted the Tumblerisms videos as made by the Internet Aristocrat.

Look, if you guys want to talk about the problems with Political Correctness, don't wait for someone like me to give you an example that you can call "not representative." If you want to confront this problem within your own ranks, be brave enough to name it yourself. The most recent season of South Park might be a good place to start. But unless you are willing to actually name those issues within Political Correctness that are held up as problems with it, and admit they aren't parodies, then you won't get anywhere.

There is no problem of "Political Correctness".

That is a right wing invention.

Like the term "Moral Equivalence", which was invented as a shield against any criticism of US action.

This term "Political Correctness" was invented to instantly place all protest of a certain kind into a impenetrable box that can be ignored and ridiculed as if it is all the same thing.

It is merely a way to pretend there is some problem with people protesting harmful and destructive behavior.

People should stop using the term. It shows one to be ignorant by it's use.

 

[iolo]

There are many issues in the world today that need to be discussed openly but are stifled by political correctness.

The ubiquitous, conversation ending accusation of racism, sexism, what-ever-ism, for instance, can stop many conversations around race, violence, immigration, education and policy issues if there is any hint of non-political-correct component. The same is for anything under the heading of 'intersectional' issues. We simply cannot even have the conversation if one side refuses to talk and respond in good faith to opposing ideas.



I see this as an over-reach on the political left and I think it turns many rationalists off. One blogger noted that this has serious implications beyond internet battles.

For instance, Europe is in a situation where the left will hurl accusations of racism at anyone who questions the wisdom of large scale Muslim immigration. This refusal to have a serious conversation by the left is causing the rise of many far right organizations that have no such fear and are wining the argument with ideas that should be met with a sensible alternative.

I experienced this first hand a couple of months ago when I was looking into debunking the 'big list of crime stats' often posted by stormfront types. Nobody on the rationalist/atheist forum I was posting would even engage on the issue. They consistently fell into fallacies such as 'those guys are bad therefor their stats are wrong' or 'examining racist claims gives them a platform' or 'you are racist for looking into their claims'. They would do anything but actually help debunk the statistics. The result was that people reading the exchange came away with the idea that these racists might have something to their argument.



This type of head-in-the-sand approach across the left in western countries is giving (sometimes far) right political voices the only voice on many issues. I see this as a terrible failure of the left.

Is this a problem, and if so, what should be done?

What a load of crap. The people who invented this PC drivel just want to get back to lynching and nice sports like that.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I don't think anyone wants to bring back lynching, just a time when you could say things meant to offend and disgust and then have no one call you on it and hurt your feelings.