The psychology of political correctness

Kohl gives a PERFECT politically correct speech with all the right leftist meanings to protest the use of the term PC to characterize exactly what he's doing. Bill Lind came along and systematized that usage and all you are doing is saying he isn't allowed to have a negative view of those things Kohl speaks of so politically correctly. That's all it amounts to.

*facepalm*I see we are getting nowhere here. No. Kohl says that political correctness was aimed at authoritarian communists by egalitarian socialists.
Lind says political correctness = egalitarian socialists (= Marxists)Lind is allowed whatever view he likes, as am I. But this isn't 'systemizing' it's twisting the meaning of a term to mean something entirely different from its original usage.

Donald Trump's speeches are racist.Donald Trump's behavior is racist.If you defend Donald Trump you are defending racist speech and racist behavior.When Donald Trump says he would like to punch someone in the face it is evidence that he condones violence.When you say Islam is the devil's own invention then that is an Islamophobic assertion.When you make Islamophobic statements and defend a person who constantly makes racist statement, condones violence acts like a racist by having the Secret Service send all the Black students out of his rally can you be surprised when folk might think you are a potentially violent racist homophobic and Islamophobic individual?

What do you call Saul Alinsky, the "community organizer" which is most certainly a euphemism for some form of Marxism? Coyote's quote from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals in Message 145 showed the parallel with the use of PC that Lind wrote about: HURT PEOPLE BY USING WORDS THAT DESTROY THEIR ABILITY TO OBJECT TO YOU. You call that "egalitarian socialism?"Sorry, Lind made it very clear that it is totalitarianism by personal attack to shut people up, by intimidating them, vilifying and disenfranchising them, people who object to leftist policies. You are just playing the usual word game so often used to obscure the truth here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks Faith, a prefect example of innuendo and smear attacks.

Apparently you don't know the difference between a simple factual statement and innuendo. Some acquaintance with Alinsky's Rules for Radicals should be evidence enough that he's a Marxist. It's all about manipulating change whether people want it or not. It's all about forcing their will on others by subterfuge. It's all about using whatever means work to achieve the end you want. It's an evil immoral system. And it's Marxist: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have been a community organizer for several churches, a food bank and a few charity drives. I suppose that is a euphemism for some form of Marxism?

A community organizer. It's because he dedicated his life to taking broken communities and helping them organise themselves so that they can work together to better their living conditions.I guess that the idea of cooperation aided through leadership and centralising community activities such as churches are Marxist ideas too? No, it looks like a list of tactics that movements that seek to change society have employed. It looks like a guide to Radicals. Activists. In the 70s. And as you have made clear in this very thread, you would shut people up. Physically. Rather than be seen outside wearing a skirt. Through intimidation and villification, disenfranchisement. These are are all right wing activities practiced against minority on religions, sexualities, egalitarian principles even.The thing is, I am conceding that some people use tools to try and intimidate and silence right wing speakers. You seem incapable of admitting that the right wing has plenty of history of doing likewise. This thread is about trying to understand opposing viewpoints. You haven't really gone very far towards that. I read Lind's work. I read about some of the work of the Frankfurt School As I might disagree with your viewpoint, I am working to get a grip on it while also trying to help you to grip the opposing viewpoint in a way that you don't seem to be because you are so confident you have it already. You are wrong about lots of things that are easily checked, smearing people with weird quasi-historical slurs.It's strangeOn the one hand the Communist claim to campaigning for equal rights is dismissed as propaganda.
Then the Communists actively conspired to get equal rights in the USA.On the one hand the Communists actively conspired to create equal rights, introduce political correctness, to destroy America
On the other hand you are surprised people might confuse you to be homophobicOn the one hand you say we should return to 1955 era social policy
On the other hand you are confused by accusations of racism when you talk about your preferred social policies.On the one hand we should stick to traditional, historical usages of a word
On the other, we should use the definition William S Lind used in 2000.On the one hand Catholics are conspiring with Marxists and other 'critical theorists' to undermine Protestantism through the introduction of many nonsense versions of the Bible in the aftermath of Sinaiticus and the Pope is the antichrist.
On the other hand William S Lind is a Catholic who said:

quote:

---

What is now happening, and what Rome may have discerned, is that the people on each side of this division find they have more in common with those in other denominations who share their basic faith, Christianity or cultural Marxism, than with the people on the other side of that divide within their own churches. A potential is emerging for a vast realignment, one transcending the divisions that came out of the Reformation. That realignment, in which the remaining Christians in every church would gather in a single, new (small c) catholic church, needs a leader. Who better than Rome? Indeed, who other than Rome could possibly pull it off?

---

Come All Ye FaithfulYou are a riddle wrapped in an enigma faith, you really are

Depends on your tactics, whether you seek to force your will on everybody else while organizing your community.

It is the Catholic institution that I object to, the papacy, rightly identified by the Reformers as the Antichrist, not the average Catholic, who sometimes does share my view of things.

Do you understand even basic English Faith?How could I force my will on anyone?I can present arguments and try to persuade them to my position, but how can I force them?How can the Carnegie Foundation force their will on anyone?How can the Communist Workers Party of America force their will on anyone?Sheesh.

Hah, I don't buy it.An academic produces a Bible for Catholics and meets the Pope to discuss his work. This is evidence he was involved in a centuries spanning secret Catholic conspiracy, it's certainly suspicious. This is a deeply insidious conspiracy involving Jesuits, and the academic's goals seem to further their ends...There is no way a human being is capable of enough doublethink to hold this belief and also see a Catholic argue that a positive effect of Cultural Marxism is it might drive American Protestants to seek to return en masse to Roman Catholicism and follow that swell guy The Pope's idea....but not suspect something's afoot . Right? Oh. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

What? Nobody uses one incident as evidence for some great conspiracy. Are you claiming I do that? There is LOTS of evidence of Jesuit and papal conspiracy, both, but you have to spend time on it because there IS lots of it. So much I get overwhelmed when I start collecting it for my blog. Which I really should get back to and give up this ridiculous excuse for a debate here.

I suppose it is good evidence you aren't reading what I'm writing.

That's nowhere near to calling you a racist. I am not aware of any of Trump's statements that I would call racist, but certainly he's made some that I think were unwarranted attacks on Mexico and illegal immigrants.None of that means that your defense of Trump makes you racist. However if you feel that attacking somebody that you support is the same as attacking you, then you've probably done some unwarranted adoptions of things that weren't even addressed to you. Surely you cannot expect people to hold back on their speech just in case you might support that person.I have to admit that I do find your defense of some of Trump's statements puzzling and surprising, but I haven't called you a racist because of your defense of Trump. I haven't even gone so far as to call Trump racist.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.