The psychology of political correctness

Faith, I believe is absolutely correct up to a point about the whole PC thing. It exists and it is used as a weapon to cut off any logical argument under the presumption that it is somehow bigoted or offensive somehow. They are "offended" by design, as a way to denude any rational argument. The best way is to just make it completely off limits for your opponents and then sanctimoniously lord over it.So, up to a point, she is right. The thing with Faith is that she views everything in extremes. There's not much moderation. So if you abstain from using inflammatory comments, you aren't merely exhibiting self-restraint and tact... No, you are actually exhibiting Marxist PC tactics that directly came down off the mountain under the tutelage of comrades Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.If you don't believe exactly as Faith does about Christianity, well, it's because you aren't a real Christian. GDR evidently is a liberal posing as a Christian. As for myself, in her eyes I went to the dark-side too quickly; I must therefore have never been a Christian, because a real Christian could never abandon Christ.... nevermind Jesus' and Paul's writings saying that you can.But, oh yes, modern-day Liberals have their whackaloons too.

Perhaps not you, but a lot of people use it like a filibuster. Often just the allegation alone is all they feel they need to make.

Therein lies the problem. Donald Trump says things so absurd that it looks like a parody (think Colbert parodying an ultra-conservative) or that he must be trolling. And if we look at the polls, what conclusion are liberals supposed to come to when it comes to analyzing the moral construct of the Right if this is their top candidate?I still believe, however, that these results are reactionary. Both Dems and Reps will get behind anyone they don't truly agree with so long as it isn't from the opposing Party. This is what American politics has done with the two-party system. The unofficial motto is, "Anybody but Hillary [or Trump] [or Obama] [or GWB]" And they are willing to back someone they know is a madman because, to them, he's still less of a madman than Sanders or Clinton, and vice versa. But they feel compelled to vote for them, because if they don't, the other guy [or gal] will be elected.And keeping in line with the topic at hand, I think Trump is seen as some kind of revolutionary non-politician politician because the man has no filter and says some really racist things. The fearmongering that goes on at FOX when it comes to things like illegal immigration or the threat of ISIS is bombarding these people so that the situation seems almost hopeless. I mean, listening to them you would think that ISIS is 50 miles from Washington D.C. and closing in.The inverse [here comes the dogpile] is that liberals are so affected by political correctness that they tend to only see the world in terms of victims and victimizers. If there is some problem in the world, it's because group A is oppressing group B. Group A is always in the wrong (whether they are or not) and Group B is always victimized. They are so terrified of being considered racist, homophobic, or just in general bigoted in some way or fashion, that it clouds their better judgment.This extreme polarization that shuns modernity is inflamed by media outlets like FOX on the right and MSNBC on the left.

Good point, because there are definitely times when being called "PC" (as a derogatory remark) is unwarranted. I was, of course, speaking in generalities about certain tendencies among Progressives. Well, you bring up a good point. In the same way that I was referring to the filibuster, this seems to be the conservative version of the filibuster. But at the same time, sometimes PC goes way too far so that if you notice any tendencies about a group, it had better only be complimentary.

Except that certain characteristics among groups is what distinguishes one from another. That's how you can determine who is liberal and who is conservative, for example.

I was only critical of liberalism in terms of their view on political correctness. No need to be so defensive. I take it my characterization of conservatives was spot on then? Imagine that.

I said I was speaking in generalities. It's not an indictment on all liberals. Not at all. I consider myself mostly socially liberal and fiscally conservative. At the same time, I don't really like the view of most liberals when it comes to political correctness. I think it's too extreme. That's just a personal preference of mine. You disagree and that's fine. We're just having a conversation. Nobody can "qualify" an opinion based upon observation, much less you nor I could about about conservatives. And actually really hilarious. When I was critical of conservatives ****silence**** but as soon as I challenge the Progressive establishment, just like I called it, the dogpile begins.Let me make it more clear then. What I stated was a subjective opinion about things that I have personally noticed -- a series of anecdotes, if you will. I am in no way suggesting that my opinion is an objective fact.

My characterization comes from my own observations, just like it is your observation that mine sounds more like it came from FOX than it does MSNBC. I don't care what FOX or MSNBC has to say about anything. I agree with the first part, but I think MSNBC (which I named specifically for a reason) is particularly slanted. One could make the argument that CNN is liberal, conservative, or moderate on any given day. I think CNN reflects more moderate tones of mainstream liberalism. I didn't bash Trump, the conservative mindset, and FOX news?

Of its extreme view in political correctness, again, with the provision that it's just my opinion! What I mean to say is that subjective opinions cannot be qualified empirically. Percy, that's too many experiences to list off the top of my head. But one that comes to mind is when the Seattle chapter of Black Lives Matter shouted down one of their strongest advocates, Bernie Sanders. And he dare not call them out for being incredibly rude and counterproductive because that wouldn't be politically correct.The way it has been described in various Progressive circles, there is an imagined hierarchy of oppression. The more underprivileged you are, the more you have the perceived right to have your complaint addressed first.

Well, agree to disagree.

quote:

---

I don't really like the view of most liberals

---

You quotemined the hell out of me... I clearly said I don't like the view of most liberals "when it comes to political correctness." And there is nothing factual to back up when I also clearly stated that I was simply giving my opinion on the matter.

I'm not castigating all liberals. I consider myself a classical liberal. I have some issues with modern-day liberals, and I often distinguish between this brand of liberalism by calling them Progressives. One such is issue is with some Progressive views on Political Correctness. I apologize for any confusion on my end, it was not intended. Same/same. I think this is where the confusion lies... My fault. I didn't express my views beforehand. In modern vernacular, people use the term "liberal" to denote people on the left of the political spectrum. My conception of liberalism stems from my understanding of Classical Liberalism. Modern-day liberalism, in my opinion, comes from the Progressive Era (think FDR timeline). I sometimes distinguish between liberals and Progressives, although I interchangeably also use modern-day conceptions of liberals because it is common as part of the vernacular.With that in mind, I was critical of how some Progressives view Political Correctness. And this doesn't mean only people in politics. Because I do understand why it might not be in the best interest of Bernie Sanders to attack the people who hijacked his airtime. I was referring more to Progressives who let that incident go simply because they agree with BLM in principle. But because they happened to be black, perhaps many felt that calling them out for their rudeness would be considered "racist." That's too extreme and ridiculous, in my opinion. The way I see it, you can still agree with BLM in principle AND call out those ladies for what they did. It's like they're so terrified of being branded a racist if they check them on their behavior.

You disagree that, on par, liberals generally view political correctness as something to aspire towards?

Actually, a lot would, sadly. Type in "trigger warning" in a YouTube search and be prepared to cringe. But I am delighted to hear that you think it's stupid too... Or at least taking something serious like a real trigger warning (actual PTSD) and making a mockery of it (oh, look at me, I'm emo... so many feels).

Yes, like a little badge of honor. Only that it's an observation.

quote:

---

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term primarily used as a pejorative to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society; in pejorative usage, those who use the term are generally implying that these policies are excessive.

---

Pretty spot on, considering I didn't write it. No, although I would say that it is a fairly common characteristic among self-described liberals. I don't know; you tell me. Perhaps you can't acknowledge it because it's too close to how you view things and it obviously is meant as an unflattering pejorative. And I'm not saying that to be derisive or hostile to you. Kind of like an inability to see the forest from the trees. No, it's an example of a mindset commonly found among Progressives. And what allows me to do that is perspective. You can disagree with it. I have repeatedly stated that it is an opinion of mine.What more do you want me to say?

Agree to disagree There's a difference between tact (discretion) and PC. PC is an extreme attempt not to offend usually to show contrition or solidarity towards a group or belief. As I described with Percy, not calling out the Seattle chapter of the BLM would qualify. Why might some people not call them out? Well, they may agree with the BLM movement in principal, but are afraid to call out their behavior out of some misplaced fear of being branded as racist (even though you can agree with the content but not agree with the method of delivery for that content). "Oh, you only called them out because they are black." That kind of thing... That's not demonstrating discretion, that's being afraid of the PC Police (people who claim you're sexist, racist, homophobic, etc if you challenge their bullshit, not on the merits of what you're actually arguing, but intentionally distorting it to create a red herring and thus making themselves appear morally superior). No, it's about patronizingly excessive contrition. I never said all. I have repeatedly stated some do. The furthest I went is that it is a fairly common trait among Progressives.