|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Just What is (and what is wrong with) Political Correctness? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
We are supposed to go around feeling nice, politically correct feelings all the time. According to whom?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
According to whom?
Me.
You're the person who decides what people are supposed to think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No, I meant that was my opinion about PC. I already know what your opinion about PC is, you wrote it and I responded with a question. Apparantly PC means we are supposed to think pure thoughts. Who decided this? Where did this come from? It's like saying that being polite means we are supposed to have no selfish thoughts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If a politician said 'We bombed the sand niggers into oblivion, those that survived the blast will be useless cripples for the rest of their miserable existence. There were two civillians killed in the action: one was a fag and the other a slitty eyed rice pedaler. '
He would have made a political gaffe, since he would turn various groups of people against him. A politician has to word his phrases carefully to avoid getting fired by his employers/the voters. As such there is a correct way and an incorrect way to phrase things in the political arena. One way will lose you votes, that is politically incorrect. Another way will not lose votes*, that is the politically correct way of talking. Naturally, meanings shift and change and phrases like politically correct are included. Politically correct is not inherently bad, since politicians have to appeal to their voters and that includes the Micks and the Spics. As social animals we are basically embroilled in our own politics on a daily basis - and pc language can help us not suffer social backlashes. It's basically verbal manners, since unintentionally offending people in groups gets easier the larger the group, the more we have to watch how we phrase things. In my closest social group we enjoy letting rip and being extremely un-pc to the max on occassion, but no offense is taken since the rules are known before it begins. *Not counting the content of the speech itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
From the Leftists. Is hopelessly general. I'm a Leftist and am morally opposed to thought control through language. I'd simply rather call someone disabled as opposed to a total spacca, its simple social empathy.
It's about changing an entire mentality of a people Its small potatoes compare with newspeak: Collateral damage, terrorists, nazis, axis of evil, friendly fire. We have also reduced the connotations of wars and invasions by calling them 'liberations', 'actions' and 'operations'. We don't like to bomb we like to provide air support or artillery back up...if we're being explicit we might call it 'shelling'. Corrupt governments under the perceived control of a friendly nation are 'puppet regimes'. We don't indiscriminately attack population centres we 'neutralize a terrorist threat'. That attempt to change mentality through dehumanisation is far more concerning than attempting to change mentality through excessive humanisation, don't you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Bill Lind writes: "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that...What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. The article read just like a rant by General Jack D Ripper, so absurd you question if should be on The Onion. I like the bit about how PC makes groups that are good, like homosexuals - it was a particularly amusing bit of propaganda. Anyway the quote above is a good one for EvC forum I thought. Mr Lind is strongly against criticizing a theory without presenting an alternative. I'm fairly happy to agree with him on that - I wonder if the Creos here do?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
As for an alternative creationist theory, what a strange idea that that is lacking in our arguments here. One thing we do have is an alternative, and we are very insistent on it, only you guys don't like it. And yet, when pressed for specifics oft is the cry 'we don't need an alternative to show evolution is unscientific!' and upon being pressed the cry becomes 'god did it'. I'm sure you've seen it, I expect you'll call those that engage in it...and I'm not talking about broad concepts, I'm talking about the little details. Of course its by the by, but we both know now that not presenting an alternative is bad form. As for cultural Marxism, I haven't read a great deal about it. If it is as insane as the essay you presented then I don't want to subject myself to it. Any practical, modern examples that this is what PC is all about? You have accused me of being PC, yet I despise femi-nazis (I have no problem with feminism in the sense of women having equal pay for equal work etc), I can think of several gay people I don't like and who aren't 'good'. The idea that homosexuals are inherently good in PC-land is a pile of crap. In PC-land homosexuals are not inherently bad, which is a world of difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Type, coupled by equivocation for every time it is used by a conservative group. More specifically, 'special pleading'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You do realize that Rush Limbaugh coined that term to demonize all supporters of equality for women, don't you? Lots of phrases were coined for one reason only to be adopted for another sometimes contradictory reason.
And who are these "feminazis" you refer to, anyway? feminazis refer to those who would have women as superior to men, not equal. Also, the lesser feminazis are those who impose their view on others due to a perceived threat to their gender.
More importantly, are they in any sort of influential or powerful position? Why is that important to my point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Creationists have an alternative only it's not worked out in the specifics. When I say 'little details', I refer to the specifics.
I don't remember Lind saying homosexuals are good in PC land. Its more extreme than that. According to Lind they are good because they are homosexual, regardless of what they do.
Lind writes: Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims," and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism. Another golden part is
Lind writes: So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. I've never seen anyone describe the entire works of Shakespeare to be about the suppression of women, and I have never seen anyone say the Bible is really all about race and gender...though I can imagine a Klan member saying it. If this is truly what you think PC is all about, one of us must be massively deluded. I might be forced to wear a rubber suit to make sure the PC/Marxist/Commies don't invade my bodily fluids.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
There is much of this sort of thing in the literary criticism of the last 20 years or so. The literary work is treated as a social artifact that reveals the prejudices of its day. Shakespeare's time was extremely sexist and racist, and this is revealed in his works. I am aware of that - but I have never seen anybody say that 'all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women'. Those themes are present, but they are not the only themes. One can dedicate an entire book to the insights gained about Shakespeare's society gleaned from his writings but likewise you can dedicate books to Shakespeare that don't mention it at all.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024