Political correctness out of control

[Crazy Eddie]

The abuse of the term by conservatives to refer to any an all liberal values is a more recent phenomena...

And is the CURRENT meaning of the word in present political discourse throughout the United States. I am well aware that the term derives from the (for most part sarcastic) comparison to Soviet Style "political officers" in party politics, running around enforcing proper use of terms and ideology. I am also aware (and clearly YOU are too) that it was a term of abuse even then, and that the evils it referred to where not always or even usually extremist by any standards (except in the minds of the people who rejected them).

dogmatic leftist like yourself

You have no idea what a "dogmatic leftist" is do you?

More significantly, you have no idea who or what I am, and you would have to be a massive dumbass to make that mistake.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The matter can also be discussed without the term "political correctness", of course. The question in that case would seem to be (as I understand the OP) whether discussion of serious issues is being stifled because saying things that are in conflict with some left-wing ideologies usually results in bullying (usually without physical force), vilification, character assassination, etc.
In my assessment, While that sort of reaction usually won't shut up right-wing political activists - who have their own groups supporting them, and couldn't care less if left-wingers attack them, or even want that - in most cases (but in some cases, it might if their jobs are at risk), it may very well have that effect on many other people.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In my assessment, While that sort of reaction usually won't shut up right-wing political activists - who have their own groups supporting them, and couldn't care less if left-wingers attack them, or even want that - in most cases (but in some cases, it might if their jobs are at risk), it may very well have that effect on many other people.

Agree 100%. I have seen many times some perfectly reasonable and well thought out comments and essays being stomped flat by commentators over the most inane rhetorical missteps. This presents a barrier in honest communications if one insists on taking offense to things that are not meant offensively and refuses to hear the substance of what is being said because something about the form makes them uncomfortable.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

In my assessment, While that sort of reaction usually won't shut up right-wing political activists - who have their own groups supporting them, and couldn't care less if left-wingers attack them, or even want that - in most cases (but in some cases, it might if their jobs are at risk), it may very well have that effect on many other people.

Agree 100%. I have seen many times some perfectly reasonable and well thought out comments and essays being stomped flat by commentators over the most inane rhetorical missteps. This presents a barrier in honest communications if one insists on taking offense to things that are not meant offensively and refuses to hear the substance of what is being said because something about the form makes them uncomfortable.

Yes, I've seen (and endured) that too, and two more things:

1. Even when there was no fault on the part of the person (i.e., no actual rhetorical missteps), nearly everyone around believed that there was, and the vilification, misconstruction, etc., followed.
2. Sometimes, the attacks didn't result from alleged rhetorical missteps, but from the substance. Instead of a substantive reply, the reply is an attack with no substantive content, other than substantiation of personal accusations on the bases of false attributions of beliefs, intentions, and statements to the person making a point - but no substantial discussion of the actual point.

 

[ronburgundy]

And is the CURRENT meaning of the word in present political discourse throughout the United States.


I am well aware that the term derives from the (for most part sarcastic) comparison to Soviet Style "political officers" in party politics, running around enforcing proper use of terms and ideology.

Well, then your prior comments show ignorance and/or inability to logically apply these facts.

I am also aware (and clearly YOU are too) that it was a term of abuse even then, and that the evils it referred to where not always or even usually extremist by any standards (except in the minds of the people who rejected them).

If by "abuse" you mean a valid criticism of destructive left-wing authoritarianism, then I agree. Just like right-wing authoritarian bullies cry about "abuse" against Christians, it is common for bullies on the left to cry about "abuse" when they are accurately called out as well. The extremism of PC lies not in its abstract stated goals but in the specific details of its demands. As you rightly pointed out, "African-American" is a objectively invalid term or at best misleading. Its prevalence is modern discourse is the direct result of PC efforts to control speech by a handful of leftist pseudo-intellectuals and "leaders", like Jessie Jackson.

 

[Herrick]

Is the word "nigger" as big a deal in Sewden as it is in the US?

 

[Bomb#20]

A continued, widespread, and perverted overuse (such that it's current misuse is essentially perverted beyond repair) tells me that any attempt to use the term as it's continued primary use (as if it's in accord with historical use) is foolhardy. It's a hopeless cause, as the precursor that allowed for it's distorted use is the same barrier to recontinued correct (or should I say historical?) use. But good luck.

Sorry. I was being perhaps unreasonably pessimistic.

Perhaps; but probably not.

The university’s “Just Words” campaign is the work of UWM’s “Inclusive Excellence Center” and aims to “raise awareness of microaggressions and their impact”—microaggressions like “politically correct” or “PC.”​

The point of calling these people "correct" is to mock them. How do you do that to people who have become such Onionesque mockeries of themselves?

 

[JonA]

Wrong. As already explained, the the origin and continued primary use of the term is to refer to blindly dogmatic application of a political agenda without regard for scientific or ethical "correctness". Thus, making it something that is only "correct" according to extremist dogmatic ideology, and thus by definition "out of control" in the sense of being unreasonable, unjustified, and harmful.

Half right. The TERM originally referred to the application of a political agenda (namely, that minorities should be spoken to and treated with respect and sensitivity) which from the very beginning was rejected by conservatives as too stifling of their expressive creativity. It is indeed "correct" only in the terms of that political agenda, and would be "incorrect" only if one assumes that treating people with respect and sensitivity is not something you should have to do (hence the reason Rush Limbaugh was one of the first to rail against the concept of "political correctness").

There's nothing extremist about that ideology. When and where it becomes dogmatic, however, is when it gets out of control.

You are just accepting and reacting to their perverted use of the term rather than its historical and legit and meaningful modern use

Now that wouldn't be the blindly dogmatic application of a rightwing political agenda demanding that I accept YOUR definition of a political term as if it is the only possible correct interpretation of it... right?

You are wrong of course. As the term clearly implies, political correctness is about elevating conformity to the ruling political agenda over concerns such as freedom of expression and scientific accuracy. It isn't about being a decent person or respecting others; for those ideas we already have terminology and need no more.

Political correctness has only one purpose: to shame, bully, or legislate out of existence ideas that do not conform to the dominant political agenda, regardless of their otherwise correctness.

The similarity between political correctness and such cultural/moral purisms that banned books in earlier times is strong. The tactics may be different - indeed, they have been updated to work within the twenty-first century political environment - , but the central belief that certain things should remain unsaid is the same.

Both these are poison and cannot exist in a truly liberal society.

 

[fast]

The university also claims the word “lame” is a microaggression that somehow both “ridicules and ignores the lives of amputees” and therefore shouldn’t be used.

Words can have connotations that are exemplified in certain very specific uses, and as such, they can serve to carry this microagressive baggage, but to think every instance of a words use is consequently unleashing ungliness is beyond laughable--and by laughable, I don't mean to show scorn for those that might currently be sad and find it hard to be joyful or share in laughter.

 

[untermensche]

There is no such thing as "political correctness".

It is a right wing creation that is used as magic words to lump all different kinds of protest as the same thing.

You keep saying this, even though the actual origin of the term has already been pointed out upthread. The noun form, "political correctness", is a backformation from the adjective form, "politically correct". "Politically correct" used to be a term of art in Marxist circles. The hard left said it unselfconsciously, referring to views they saw as being the correct views to hold for political reasons. The ideologically impure left got fed up with the orthodox left trying to stifle debate among the left and bully them into conformity, and they took up using "politically correct" sarcastically, as a put-down of Marxist narrow-mindedness and an expression of their own commitment to accepting diversity of opinion. The concept spread by osmosis from the non-doctrinaire leftists to centrists, and eventually to rightists. Of course centrists and rightists use it to refer to a considerably less specialized orthodoxy than the one the Marxists were pushing. From a point of view outside the left, an awful lot of the non-Marxist left come off about as dogmatic as orthodox Marxists come off from the point of view of a typical leftist.

You haven't given any coherent definition of the term or any reason to think it refers to anything real.

It is generally just a term really ignorant people throw around as some moronic attempt at an insult.

 

[Bomb#20]

Where are you getting that? Bullying is the central feature of political correctness.

Sensitivity and respect is the central feature of political correctness. OVERDOING that is "political correctness out of control."

People are typically described as "politically correct" in three situations.

(1) They're going to an unusual effort to be sensitive and respectful to protected groups and protected ideas.

(2) They're trying to bully other people into going to an unusual effort to be sensitive and respectful to protected groups and protected ideas.

(3) They're trying to bully other people into going to an iota of effort to be sensitive and respectful to individuals.​

The substantive objection is to (2). People took up commenting on (1) because doing (1) creates the impression that the unusually sensitive and respectful person either has been bullied into it or is liable to bully others. People took up commenting on (3) because the widespread prevalence of (2) gives insensitive and disrespectful people cover to pretend they were bullied for reason (2) rather than reason (3).

(Likewise, the existence of situation (3) gives the situation (2) bullies cover to pretend they're mere situation (3) bullies, and bully their situation (2) victims further, for the sin of complaining about being bullied.)

That is, people being TOO sensitive, treating things with respect even when they are obviously frivolous and not worthy of it.

"So a white guy (the director) is telling a black guy (the artist) to stop being racist against blacks. He just doesn't get it. This is just political correctness out of control. He seems to be under the impression that art is a democratic process. It isn't. I'm going to call it whatever I like". - Makode Linde

You're talking about overdoing (1). I'm pretty sure DrZoidberg and Linde were talking about (2).

Using political correctness to bully people is actually a form of censorship.

Right you are.

(hence the reason Rush Limbaugh was one of the first to rail against the concept of "political correctness").

Non-leftists at my college were railing against it in the early 80s, before Limbaugh's show even existed.

You are just accepting and reacting to their perverted use of the term rather than its historical and legit and meaningful modern use

Now that wouldn't be the blindly dogmatic application of a rightwing political agenda demanding that I accept YOUR definition of a political term as if it is the only possible correct interpretation of it... right?

dogmatic leftist like yourself

You have no idea what a "dogmatic leftist" is do you?

More significantly, you have no idea who or what I am, and you would have to be a massive dumbass to make that mistake.

Dude, you started it! ronburgundy is no more a dogmatic rightwinger than you are a dogmatic leftist. You're both moderate guys capable of creative thought. Now shake hands and be friends.

 

[Bronzeage]

'Political correctness" is the simplest form of a strawman. Coin a term, create a definition which makes the idea abhorrent to everyone in the world, and then accuse your opponents of being for it.

Has anyone ever plead guilty to "elevating conformity to the ruling political agenda over concerns such as freedom of expression and scientific accuracy..."?

Of course, they say, it's "about being a decent person or respecting others."

But that can't be right because, "for those ideas we already have terminology and need no more."

How is it, in the world of political and social debate, we suddenly have enough ideas?

 

[untermensche]

How is it, in the world of political and social debate, we suddenly have enough ideas?

Those unable to handle new ideas, attack them.

The First Amendment is really about political speech. Speaking out against the conduct of the government and government officials. The government should have no power to silence such speech, although it always has and does unconstitutionally.

There are many restrictions on speech because not all speech is the same thing.

And today many young people are saying that some forms of speech are a behavior, nothing more. Not any kind of political speech. And behavior has always had limits.

 

[repoman]

Is what happened to Maryam Namazie during her speech and the reaction from hard lefties an example of PC?

If not what is it?

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/carol-hunt/multiculturalism-and-the-culture-of-offence-34262492.html

 

[untermensche]

Is what happened to Maryam Namazie during her speech and the reaction from hard lefties an example of PC?

If not what is it?

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/carol-hunt/multiculturalism-and-the-culture-of-offence-34262492.html

So abusive misogynist behavior is the same as "PC"?

The question is; how do we get Muslim males to be more open to the rights of women?

Can we beat them into submission? Will that work?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Is what happened to Maryam Namazie during her speech and the reaction from hard lefties an example of PC?

If not what is it?

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/carol-hunt/multiculturalism-and-the-culture-of-offence-34262492.html

So abusive misogynist behavior is the same as "PC"?

The question is; how do we get Muslim males to be more open to the rights of women?

Can we beat them into submission? Will that work?

So abusive misogynist behavior is the same as "PC"?

This is key. When the language already covers a concept, but the majority contrives or co-ops a term or phrase that means the same as what is already vailable in order to describe something about itself that is the same yet "different" thus allowing the majority to now be a victim, you probably have a bullshit term. Not one meant to enlighten, elucidate or educate, but one meant to distract, disguise, or deceive.

 

[repoman]

What I was trying to say is that feminists at Goldsmith are yelling at her for being mean to muslims. When if it were christians (especially white ones) doing the same thing -- well we all know what the reaction would be.

 

[untermensche]

So abusive misogynist behavior is the same as "PC"?

This is key. When the language already covers a concept, but the majority contrives or co-ops a term or phrase that means the same as what is already vailable in order to describe something about itself that is the same yet "different" thus allowing the majority to now be a victim, you probably have a bullshit term. Not one meant to enlighten, elucidate or educate, but one meant to distract, disguise, or deceive.

These people ASSOCIATE with the majority (majority race), a mental trick, but they are in fact a minority themselves.

Yet they also by some mental trick, or perhaps defect, have the added ignorance to think they are speaking for some majority.

- - - Updated - - -

What I was trying to say is that feminists at Goldsmith are yelling at her for being mean to muslims. When if it were christians (especially white ones) doing the same thing -- well we all know what the reaction would be.

What exactly were these feminists saying?

Understanding that a feminist is one that wants to expand the rights of women.

 

[repoman]

 

[untermensche]

View attachment 4958

These are really ISLAMIC feminists.

Loyal to a religion, not to the idea of expanding women's rights.

Not really feminists at all.

Kind of how the Nazi's were socialists.