The psychology of political correctness

Actually, when I accuse someone of bigotry, it is not to cut off discussion, it is because I find the actions/statements examples of bigotry. Yes it is true that not all people oppose illegal immigration, for example, out of bigotry, but some comments and statements, particularly extreme ones that needlessly attack an entire country or nationality, are bigoted. At the very least, the users of such verbiage are partially responsible for their own dismissal.In many cases accusation of PC are made to cut off legitimate complaints about language, etc. Calling someone on calling another person a slut in a discussion about birth control is not PC and is not done to cut off discussion.

Are the accusations that fly around here, particularly the ones leveled at the right far right opinions, really examples of predicting moral beliefs rather than reacting to expressions of those beliefs. It is a long time since I have been truly surprised at Faith's stance on an issue. But what examples are there of participants assuming that someone will have a particular belief? How often does this happen in our discussions?

Yeah, I think probably fits me to a tee.

That would indeed be incredibly bad behavior on the part of liberals. Who have you noticed that consistently provides reasonable sounding conservative arguments? Maybe we just don't have enough conservative variety.

I hope you are right about that. And apparently noting that what he says is racist is taken as calling Trump racist, which then gets you called PC. At least according to one poster here. There are some victims and at least some institutionalized victimization. But claiming that all liberals see all problems under this light is total BS. If that were true, then the term PC might mean something. Right now PC seems most often to mean, "Why can't I express myself about the bad things all [your choice] do without being called a racist."

No, of course not. I'll note that Percy's original comment was about characterizations of both conservatives and liberals.But when it comes to liberals you generalize excessively and apply the label to all liberals. I seem to recall another thread where you were called on exactly the same thing. It seems to me that you are very comfortable with making unqualified statements about what all liberals are like.It is okay to make statements, even non-complimentary ones about a group's tendencies. But unqualified statements about things that all liberals do when they do not all do that are not going to be well received; and for good reason.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think you are just as guilty of generalizing about conservatives as might be any liberal. For some people, life beginning at conception is accepted as a truth. And for that reason these particular people complain about many forms of contraception and are also against the 'morning after pill'. Now maybe you are not part of that group, but some conservatives are. It is relevant. Isn't that pretty much true at conception. Absent a mishap, a healthy human being results. No more genetic information is added after conception.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Right, and beyond that, it is not even clear that your generalities are even correct. Prime example. Even when you drop the all and say most, you couldn't back up even that sentence with any thing factual.

I suppose we might be quibbling over what constitutes a mishap. But surely that is beside the point I am making with Faith, which was that despite her claims to the contrary, that some conservatives really do concern themselves with conception, and that her won arguments did not preclude such a thing. I certainly do not buy those arguments myself.I note that Faith then admitted to being exactly that kind of hyper conservative and more. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The point was not what your particular view was, but that you attributed the view to most liberals. I apologize that leaving off the rest of your quote was misleading, but it was the phrase "most liberals" that is the point of my comment. Can you respond to that issue?

Aspire to?Do you have any support for that statement? What is your definition of political correctness anyway? Perhaps you simply define political correctness as what you see liberals do.Does your question really address what I've been calling you on?Let's say that the percentage of liberals who were more circumspect in their speech was larger than that of conservatives. Would even that support the conclusion that 'most liberals' aspire to political correctness? Nope.I know what it means to be liberal on social issues, but beyond the views on the issues that are associated with being liberal, no I don't know what most liberals aspire to, and I doubt that you do either. 'Liberals tend to disfavor the death penalty.' Yeah I'm down with that. 'Liberals have no respect for the victims of serious crime.' uh, how could you know that?According to you, Sean Penn represents all progressives and it is fair to tar all of them with that ridiculous bit of journalism on El Chapo that he conducted. Which survey allowed you to do that?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, most liberals do not generally 'aspire to' using language that attempts not to offend anyone in a way that correctly is labeled with perjoratives, and particularly using such language to excess. Are there people who spew out negative language without discretion without caring whether it is offensive? Is calling those people out PC?Perhaps you could cite an example of language you think is PC, and that you wish to say liberals use, and then we can see how you apply PC. I suspect that PC means simply calling you or others on their own excesses. I do think calling people out on goofy excesses is legitimate, although I don't 'aspire to' (direct my hopes and ambitions toward) that. Sounds pretty goofy to me.If someone is doing something bad, then negative words are going to be used to describe them. I have no problem with that. But overgeneralize, and call everyone that, and yeah, I do have an problem with that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That sure was helpful, Faith. Top link in the search...Communist Party USA – Communist Party USA

quote:

---

The Communist Party has an unparalleled history in the progressive movement of the United States, from the struggle against Jim Crow segregation, the organizing of the industrial unions, from the canneries of California, to the sweatshops of New York City.

---

That's a pretty frightening indictment of the Communist Party. They claim essentially every civil right success ever made in the history of the US. Apparently if not for the Communist Party, it would still be 1952. Wouldn't we have been better off without this kind of, er, progressiveness.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Afraid to call out what behavior, specifically? And in what terms? Labeling every supporter of BLM based on someone rioting or shooting policeman? What exactly are people afraid to say.And you believe liberals aspire to this. Sorry. Not buying that. You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but you haven't been very convincing. So the liberals are responsible for fear on the part of someone who cannot express themselves in terms that are not racist? Absent some example, I cannot judge whether the person in question is expressing racism. Seriously, there are plenty of ways to address disagreement with BLM without being racist. And there are some ways to do it in racist terminology.Here is a speech from one of Trump's endorsers. Probably belongs in the primary season thread...

quote:

---

Duke had detailed his support for Trump in a Facebook post on Thursday.

​

"I think he deserves a close look by those who believe the era of political correctness needs to come to an end," Duke wrote.

​

He touted Trump's strength on immigration, breaking up "Jewish dominated lobbies and super PACS that are corrupting and controlling American politics," preventing war with Russia, exposing media "lies" and ensuring "that White-Americans are allowed to preserve and promote their heritage and interests just as all other groups are allowed to do."

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Exactly. So perhaps the idea that progressive is somehow irrecoverably linked to the Communist Party can be dismissed in a similar way. Because surely those things cited in the propaganda were considered progressive. Yet you acknowledge that 'the Party' deserves no credit.