The psychology of political correctness

As a US citizen, long time Christian, Registered Republican and Conservative I feel I should at least point out that US Conservative Christian Republicans are not a monolithic group.This is not all that new. A great example was the division between the Goldwater and Rockefeller camps from the 1940s through the mid to late 1970s. Among the folk that would be considered as "Rockefeller Republicans" would be Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford as well many holding other offices like the Romneys and Prescott Bush and Earl Warren.

While Americans may not all be dumb, they are it seems often very ignorant.You are aware I hope Faith of the American Progressive Party, started by the former US President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 before there was a Communist Party?

The Greensboro Massacre.In 1979 the US Communist Workers' Party was holding a rally to oppose the KKK and organize mostly black textile workers in Greensboro, NC. They were attacked and five were killed. The Police actively pulled all protection away from the rally and and later the shooters were acquitted in two all white jury trials.The people killed were:

quote:

---

The marchers killed were: Sandi Smith, a nurse and civil rights activist; Dr. James Waller, president of a local textile workers union who ceased medical practice to organize workers; Bill Sampson, a graduate of the Harvard Divinity School; Cesar Cauce, a Cuban immigrant who graduated magna cum laude from Duke University; and Dr. Michael Nathan, chief of pediatrics at Lincoln Community Health Center in Durham, North Carolina, a clinic that helped children from low-income families.

---

sourceThat is hardly what I would call propaganda.

I'm still not sure what is and is not "politically correct". For example; which of the following assertions would be "politically correct"?The US is a Christian nation.The basis for our Constitution and Bill of Rights is the Bible?Islam should not be recognized as a religion and eligible for tax-exempt status because it is the devil's own invention?

So only leftists can be Politically Correct?If the statements are called into question simply based on the fact that all three were simply false, is that still just "Politically Correct"?

HUH. The Big Capitalists undermining Capitalism?What has been lost? What has been lost Faith?

Faith, you know we don't debate by video, come on.And as expected, there is absolutely nothing in the video but the usual unsupported assertions and innuendo.No reasoning person is going to give that any more credence that Big Foot videos.So again, where is the evidence?What has been lost?Will you ever provide evidence involving "Political Correct" statements?

The fact that he is on some committee has nothing to do with evidence of anything but that the fact he was on that committee. He may well be a liar, but that is not what I said; I said unsupported assertions and innuendo are not valid evidence.This is really pretty basic stuff, Faith.

Again, even though we do not debate by video, there is no evidence presented in that video, only unsupported assertion and innuendo just as your editorial comment of "And probably still are."Do you know what evidence actually is Faith?

No Faith, and that is why you are so often wrong. Evidence is independent of individual that collected it.

Human memory is known to be unreliable and that is why some other form of evidence is desireable. And when the memory as reported is simply unsupported assertions and innuendo, it really does have very little value.

Faith, I can examine evidence, evidence far beyond unsupported assertions and innuendo.How could any big or small foundation unconstitutionally interfere in American Life. That's just nuts, an utterly stupid assertion.Even if the Carnegie Foundation rewrote all the textbooks (pretty much impossible to do since the Christian Cult of Ignorance religious nuts in Texas seem to be the ones in control of content) it would not be unconstitutional.Even if the Carnegie Foundation hired each voter and told them how to vote it would not be unconstitutional unfortunately.If there is evidence then present it; unsupported assertions and innuendo are not persuasive.That is not a matter of "Politically Correct" but rather of fact.

Guess what Faith; I've owned textbooks from the 1920s and even you can still buy them. And they are full of misinformation and downright falsehoods as well as sometimes actual information. We've learned a lot in the last hundred years.But that is still not evidence to support your or Dodd's assertions.Nor is there anything unconstitutional about revising textbooks.

That's the beauty of evidence Faith, you do not have to take my word for evidence. As I pointed out, you can still buy 1920's textbooks today and read them for yourself. It's not necessary to take anyone's word for it; not mine, not Dodd's.

Actually I vigorously support such activities. For example, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was started by Carnegie in 1905 and chartered by Congress in 1906 to serve just that purpose. For a Congressional Committee to come along in 1954 and announce the stunning conclusion that an organization chartered in 1906 to provide input and guidance in education was providing input and guidance in education and like everything else in those crazy days part of the "Red Menace" is a great example of the utter ignorance of so many politicians and voters but little else.***************AbE: It is interesting to look at some of the contemporary reactions to the Reece Committee report in light of today's Congress.The two Democrats on the committee found the report so flawed that they would not even sign it. The Minority Report charged that the foundations "have been indicted and convicted under procedures which can only be characterized as barbaric." and said the Chairman of the Committee had a "deep-seated antagonism toward foundations" which might "well be characterized as pathological."The Republican Goodwin of Massachusetts included "In signing this report, I do so with strong reservations and dissent from many of its findings and conclusions and with the understanding that I may file a supplementary statement to follow" and in his supplementary statement disagreed with the conclusions and pointed out that this commission came to exactly the opposite conclusion of the Cox Committee that research the same subject just two years earlier.To added to the embarrassment that was the Reece Committee any testimony supporting the foundations was summarily cut off while testimony critical of the foundations was allowed in full. A great example of that was the fact the committee allowed three full days of testimony by the attorney Aaron Sargent who claimed "income tax was part of a plot by Fabian Socialists operating from England to pave the way for socialism in this country."******************* Again, unless there is some evidence to support that assertion it doesn't mean any more than all the other Red Menace crap from the period. Yet you seem utterly unable to provide any support for such assertions and innuendo.Edited by jar, : see AbEEdited by jar, : appalin spallin