The psychology of political correctness

I've said before that conservatism isn't necessarily a bad thing - it just depends on what you want to conserve. If you want to conserve innocent childhood, safe neighbourhoods, etc. then that's a good thing. If you want to conserve segregation, discrimination, etc. then that's a bad thing.I agree with you that YOUR version of Christianity fits best with the conservative point of view. Unfortunately, what you want to conserve makes your brand of conservatism self-disparaging.

I didn't say any of this. I don't think people should be criticized for asking questions, no matter what the questions.But the 'declare your opponent a bigot and count yourself a winner without addressing any of the content' is pretty much SOP for Liberal PC behavior.Conservatives don't typically do this, instead having their own methods for silencing opposition and relieving themselves of the responsibility of offering thoughtful responses. I don't know what you want to call that, but I don't think many would call it Political Correctness.And I did see several members pile on Theo for this, which gives me some hope for liberalism. He hasn't backed down, though, which gives me little hope for Theo.

This is not something unique to you - it's exactly what the 'liberal mindset' is. There are several different issues on which there is a considered to be a 'liberal' point of view in the US today. Some of these are interconnected, but some only very loosely, and some are completely tangential with no connection based on any underlying philosophy. I've seen many attempts to synthesis a common logic that binds all the issues together, but they strike me more as post-hoc rationalisations, and crumble before the realisation that, when you look at different places and different times, the same issues do not bundle together.These clusters of ideas come from people joining together to fight political battles over common causes (into Democratic and Republican parties for example), and from hanging out more with people who tend to agree with them. The echo chamber effect causes us to reinforce one another's views; and also to come more in line on the views we do not share. The issues become social badges of identity that we consciously or subconciously adopt to declare ourr membership of the group.I'm not sure how clearly I'm expressing the idea, but if you start out (for example) as a liberal who opposes gun control, you'll be the minority view amongst the people you consider your ideological allies. The people willing to support and reinforce your view are often those you consider political opponents; while all around you the message that your viewpoint on this is 'conservative', a label you have come to associate with something you oppose. There is a lot of subtle psychological pressure for you to conform your views to the tribe; and we are very good at rationalising away the reasons for why we changed our minds.

You're taking the term too literally, not that it matters much I guess. Mostly I still accepted abortion and sexual liberation, including homosexuality. Both had to go because the Bible defines them as sin. Eventually it got me into creationism and the conservative view of American history.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Many liberals don't do that.This is an example of you painting with a broad brush. Many do. They don't use "bigot", they prefer other choice words.But there are also many conservatives who don't do that. So I don't stereotype all conservatives based on the bad behavior of the loudmouths.

If you are going to keep on claiming that conservatives do the same thing with different words, I for one need to know what words you are talking about.

Uh, didn't you just "do this?"--Percy

Could you cite an example liberal view position that has no connection with any underlying philosophy (meaning, I assume, no connection to some larger group that is connected).I'm not coming up with my own examples, and I want to rule out the possibility that I'm just wearing liberal blinders.

It's an example of the topic.You're reading too much into my post and missing that I was just providing an example of the kind of 'PC behavior' we've been talking about. And that's good of you.The point is, when Liberals do this, it's called PC. I don't know what it's called when conservatives do it, but conservatives do do it too.

Call someone a 'bigot'?Not that I'm aware of, no.

Doesn't this state of affairs seem even the least bit suspicious to you?

I think Nwr is saying that the criticism has to be specific to the evidence, in his words, that one shouldn't paint with too broad a brush. It is wrong for both conservatives *and* liberals to criticize entire groups, including each other, based upon the behavior of a few.--Percy

I would like to know what words nwr had in mind, not you, but thanks anyway.And PC does not characterize GROUPS, it characterizes a way of thinking that happens to be liberal/leftist.

Uh, okay, more directly this time and in your own words, didn't you just cast the accusation of "pretty much SOP for Liberal PC behavior...'without addressing any of the content?'"--Percy

So when you apply the PC label to those whose thinking is "liberal/leftist," what group are you referring to if not liberals?--Percy