Political Correctness

[Jason]

Those on the right are obsessed with some conspiracy to restrict thier freedom of speech. What's up with this? Have we really reached some post-racial age where feeling compassion is stupid? Or is this some BS scheme concocted by the right to mask the fact that the world is JUST as oppressive as it was in the 1950s? :rolleyes:

Now myself, I realize that even the handicapped object to "too much" compassion because it's annoying, but to say "words don't hurt" and the like is very false.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Those on the right are obsessed with some conspiracy to restrict thier freedom of speech. What's up with this? Have we really reached some post-racial age where feeling compassion is stupid? Or is this some BS scheme concocted by the right to mask the fact that the world is JUST as oppressive as it was in the 1950s? :rolleyes:

Now myself, I realize that even the handicapped object to "too much" compassion because it's annoying, but to say "words don't hurt" and the like is very false.


Have we really reached some post-racial age where feeling compassion is stupid?

Defiantly not.


Or is this some BS scheme concocted by the right to mask the fact that the world is JUST as oppressive as it was in the 1950s? :rolleyes:

Well, in Australia recently (sort of recently), aboriginal protests were put down by police immediately after Campbell Newman came to power in Queensland.

From the description by the Socialist Alternative, it sounds just like something you'd expect to hear from the 'good ole days'.

In other earlier protests, demonstrators who burned the australian flag outside Parliament house were demonised by 'many aboriginal elders' the only named one being an official for the Australian Labour Party :rolleyes:.

[Lowtech]

political correctness is about being polite, showing respect.

you only really have an issue with political correctness if you're a right-wing, sexually repressed self righteous asshole. then suddenly you're desperately needing to justify being rude to everyone.

[Ostrinski]

Usually the people complaining about political correctness are racists, and various stripes of chauvinists, who think that they have the protected right to say whatever the fuck they want without consequence.

For example, one of these types might say something to the effect of "Muslims aren't welcome here!" and whether or not you tell them to go fuck themselves and smash a rock on their head or sit them down politely and explain to them in detail why their views are wrong and unacceptably not OK, you'll get the same ol' "welp, here comes the politically correct police! God damn liberal media taking away my right to free speech!"

So essentially they want it both ways. Obviously as a communist I'm not a constitutionalist but I would assume that most constitutional documents that handle the question of free speech say something to the effect of "the government will not infringe on the citizen's right to free speech" or something like that. We of course as communists know that that is bullshit anyway, but we still have to recognize that what it does not say is this:

"the citizen has the inalienable right to say whatever chauvinist, bigoted, or otherwise unacceptable bullshit they wish and their fellow citizen does not have the right to sit them down quietly and tell them why their views are not acceptable"

or

"the citizen has the inalienable right to say whatever chauvinist, bigoted, or otherwise unacceptable bullshit they wish and their fellow citizen does not have the right to crack a rock over their head for being an insufferable dumbfuck."

[kashkin]

Right-wingers complaining about political correctness are simply complaining that they can't be as racist, sexist and bigoted in general in public anymore. While we are not living in a post-racial/sexist/whatever society, some things have changed to an extent.


Well, in Australia recently (sort of recently), aboriginal protests were put down by police immediately after Campbell Newman came to power in Queensland.

From the description by the Socialist Alternative, it sounds just like something you'd expect to hear from the 'good ole days'.

Good ole days? Almost a quarter of the state voted for Pauline Hanson in the 90s. Or the Palm Island death in custody in 2004.

[Oswy]

It has already been said but 'political correctness' is a formal recognition that offering up prejudices, whether longstanding or not, in order to ridicule, marginalise or intimidate, are not acceptable in society. Those who object to 'political correctness' are invariably lamenting their lost freedom to vent their prejudices in public. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with freedom from hate speech.

[Thug Lessons]

The police pull you over while driving to work. The officer walks up to your car, takes your license and registration, then asks you, "Sir, do you realize your privilege is showing?" You look up in horror and realize it's actually the PC Police and misandry is real. #MRAnightmares

[Lowtech]

The police pull you over while driving to work. The officer walks up to your car, takes your license and registration, then asks you, "Sir, do you realize your privilege is showing?" You look up in horror and realize it's actually the PC Police and misandry is real. #MRAnightmares

Fuck spam and morons that think they're funny.

[Thug Lessons]

Fuck spam and morons that think they're funny.

I've had it up to here with trolls like you. Look buddy, try saying that to my face and we'll see who's "buttmad".

[cynicles]

UUgggh I know, everyone is so obsessed with being PC, you can't even burn a flag or say 'fuck the troops' without the PC police horde descending. Nevermind the restrictions on what you can say about foreign policy. Next thing you know they'll be enforcing blasphemy laws.

[Lowtech]

I've had it up to here with trolls like you. Look buddy, try saying that to my face and we'll see who's "buttmad".

a troll calling others trolls makes a whole lot of sense. take your bullshit to chit chat, champ.

[GerrardWinstanley]

The term "political correctness" is what the psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton referred to as a thought-terminating cliché. That is the use of a loaded word, phrase or slogan, usually as an argumentum ad nauseum, to shut down debate. In any culture where the dominant discourses are profoundly wanting in thought, it is necessary that this method of thought control becomes a feature of everyday language.

Far from distinguishing one's self as an unorthodox thinker, to use this phrase in the belief you've shattered the illusions of anti-racists and others is an admission that you are programmed and probably don't think much at all.

[Thirsty Crow]

political correctness is about being polite, showing respect.

Being a decent human being and not considering a group of people as inherently inferior due to skin color. If you want to call that polite, go ahead. Though, when I was being brought up, being polite referred to table manners and so on.

[Thug Lessons]

White privilege walks into a bar, the bartender says "hello" then nods. White privilege orders a light beer and chicken parmo -- he's here for the happy hour food specials before he takes the train home from work.

[Jason]

I'm against PC when it is phony. For instance, when liberals say they love black people, but do nothing to help them.

[Lowtech]

White privilege walks into a bar, the bartender says "hello" then nods. White privilege orders a light beer and chicken parmo -- he's here for the happy hour food specials before he takes the train home from work.

I appreciate that at least you copy and paste your nonsense spam. It would be far more annoying if your inability to spell or formulate cohesive thought were more apparent.

[Jason]

But to be fair, a lot of lefties said mean things about 9/11 to non-political American citizens. Isn't that cruel or is that "free speech"? For instance, if Latin American teams say 9/11 in sports matches involving US teams, then is that "rubbing thier face in it." ?

[Red Enemy]

There's politically correct, and there's being an annoying liberal. If you get shocked at hearing the word "nigger" in a non-racist context, such as discussing it's origins, it's use in a film, or quoting someone, then you are an annoying liberal.

[Manic Impressive]

hmkHLiZMJeU

[Luís Henrique]

you only really have an issue with political correctness if you're a right-wing, sexually repressed self righteous asshole. then suddenly you're desperately needing to justify being rude to everyone.

Political correctness is the right's best friend, but they are usually too stupid to understand that.

Luís Henrique

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Those on the right are obsessed with some conspiracy to restrict thier freedom of speech.

For good reason on this end, I do not support their 'freedom of speech' nor do I believe they should even have a platform to speak.


What's up with this?

The enemy has no right to speak and I have no sympathy nor do I feel compelled to even give them a platform. Usually the people whom are *****ing about people being 'PC' are usually the people whom are saying some racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, fascist, reactionary bullshit.

I also don't feel it has anything to do with compassion more it has to do with common sense and logic. To the people whom cry 'you're being PC' I say fuck you, yes I am, I am the PC cheka, boohoo, go beat off to the Anti-Federalist Papers and The Patriot and tell me how opressed you are in your 100k home because you can't say some reactionary shit without people calling you on it, boohoo.

Got an issue? Take a tissue.

http://scottdesignworks.com/portfolio_images/w_toro_blk.jpg

[Manic Impressive]

For good reason on this end, I do not support their 'freedom of speech' nor do I believe they should even have a platform to speak.

The enemy has no right to speak and I have no sympathy nor do I feel compelled to even give them a platform.
The no platform stance is silly and makes you look like you're afraid to tackle their arguments unless you're armed with a brick. It's entirely self defeating. Our arguments are better I say put both to workers and let them decide.

The thing that winds me up about the free speech lot, especially those found on the internet, is that if anyone attacks someone for their offensive views they are immediately told to shut up by the free speech brigade. They support the right to say what they want but don't support the right of another to refute it.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The no platform stance is silly and makes you look like you're afraid to tackle their arguments unless you're armed with a brick. It's entirely self defeating. Our arguments are better I say put both to workers and let them decide.


I take the no platform stance because I do not care to listen to ignorance. I am totally willing to flesh out fully why the 'PC' freedom of speech herd are collectively idiots but I just don't usually have the time or patience. Deconstructing reactionary shit is easy but again, the time and patience it takes? Mehhh, just gonna use 'fuck you, gtfo' as my default.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What I find wrong with the platform v no platform argument is its extremity.

It seems that you're either on the extreme no platform side, or the extreme 'freedom of speech' side.

As a leftist, I actually think it's to our advantage to take a more nuanced perspective. We are quite aware that fascism doesn't have a, shall we say, particularly logical intellectual underpinning. It's an ideology of hatred in theory, and has proven to be so in practice too. Thus, I don't think we should be afraid of any situation where we can debate (or any anti-fascist can debate) with a fascist in a moderated, relatively calm environment. That's why, looking back on it, having Nick Griffin on Question Time here was an absolute scalp as he was exposed as a complete twit, and as an Oxbridge alum he's supposed to be a more acceptable face of fascism! We've all seen what an idiot any EDL type comes across as - including and especially Stephen Lennon, their leader - every time they're interviewed on tv. We have nothing to fear from these sorts of situations.

Where no platform is valid, though, is situations where passion and the 'mass crowd' atmosphere is likely to lead to people being roused by these fascists in spite of inferior arguments. We need to control the fascists on the streets and give them no platform for hate speech to mass crowds in our towns and cities; it's provocative, dangerous and above all when they march through our cities especially, it's pretty uncomfortable for the type of people the far-right typically hate.

[Art Vandelay]

What I find wrong with the platform v no platform argument is its extremity.

It seems that you're either on the extreme no platform side, or the extreme 'freedom of speech' side.

As a leftist, I actually think it's to our advantage to take a more nuanced perspective. We are quite aware that fascism doesn't have a, shall we say, particularly logical intellectual underpinning. It's an ideology of hatred in theory, and has proven to be so in practice too. Thus, I don't think we should be afraid of any situation where we can debate (or any anti-fascist can debate) with a fascist in a moderated, relatively calm environment. That's why, looking back on it, having Nick Griffin on Question Time here was an absolute scalp as he was exposed as a complete twit, and as an Oxbridge alum he's supposed to be a more acceptable face of fascism! We've all seen what an idiot any EDL type comes across as - including and especially Stephen Lennon, their leader - every time they're interviewed on tv. We have nothing to fear from these sorts of situations.

Where no platform is valid, though, is situations where passion and the 'mass crowd' atmosphere is likely to lead to people being roused by these fascists in spite of inferior arguments. We need to control the fascists on the streets and give them no platform for hate speech to mass crowds in our towns and cities; it's provocative, dangerous and above all when they march through our cities especially, it's pretty uncomfortable for the type of people the far-right typically hate.

I think that's a fair position to hold however. As vox sort of mention, I don't take too kind to hateful ignorance; I have a very low tolerance level for stupid bullshit. People who spout hate don't deserve the possibility to express said opinions. While our convictions are more logical and are correct, while we can hold our own in a fair debate, the possibility of their nonsense convincing one misguided person is a risk I'm not willing to take.

[graffic]

Whilst I would hate to go back to a pre-PC world where racial bigotry is common place, political correctness seems to me to be saying we should all be "happy" "tolerant", "respectful" of the free flow of labour, liberalization of capital flows, basically exploitation. And that the silly working class man complaining about the influx of Polish labour into a market thus driving down wages and making his job perhaps more unstable can be dismissed as racist and bigot. It can be used as a way of dismissing the working class as sexist, racist and conservative instead of addressing the concerns. Political correctness can be kind of fucked up and make reactionaries feel self-righteous when it's wielded by a bourgeoise homosexual or liberal feminist to dismiss the working class as sexist or homophobic because it's an even more elitist and cynical, condoning - of -exploitation mindset than the previous traditional conservative elite ever would be towards the working class. I don't want people to be tolerant and respectful of exploitation but I don't want people to be racist either.

[Manic Impressive]

I take the no platform stance because I do not care to listen to ignorance. I am totally willing to flesh out fully why the 'PC' freedom of speech herd are collectively idiots but I just don't usually have the time or patience. Deconstructing reactionary shit is easy but again, the time and patience it takes? Mehhh, just gonna use 'fuck you, gtfo' as my default.
No platform means no platform it's not an individual perspective of whether you, personally, can be bothered to listen to or engage with reactionaries. It means that you don't want anyone else to listen to or debate against them either.

[Manic Impressive]

Whilst I would hate to go back to a pre-PC world where racial bigotry is common place, political correctness seems to me to be saying we should all be "happy" "tolerant", "respectful" of the free flow of labour, liberalization of capital flows, basically exploitation. And that the silly working class man complaining about the influx of Polish labour into a market thus driving down wages and making his job perhaps more unstable can be dismissed as racist and bigot. It can be used as a way of dismissing the working class as sexist, racist and conservative instead of addressing the concerns. Political correctness can be kind of fucked up and make reactionaries feel self-righteous when it's wielded by a bourgeoise homosexual or liberal feminist to dismiss the working class as sexist or homophobic because it's an even more elitist and cynical, condoning - of -exploitation mindset than the previous traditional conservative elite ever would be towards the working class. I don't want people to be tolerant and respectful of exploitation but I don't want people to be racist either.
The goal of socialists/communists is to unite around a common goal. Revolution based on our shared class interests. Attacking racist workers with bricks does nothing but entrentch the divisions within the working class. Perhaps you have a point that the way people talk to others about the issues which divide us can have the same effect when we use insults and talk down to them in a patronizing manner.

[soso17]

Whilst I would hate to go back to a pre-PC world where racial bigotry is common place, political correctness seems to me to be saying we should all be "happy" "tolerant", "respectful" of the free flow of labour, liberalization of capital flows, basically exploitation. And that the silly working class man complaining about the influx of Polish labour into a market thus driving down wages and making his job perhaps more unstable can be dismissed as racist and bigot. It can be used as a way of dismissing the working class as sexist, racist and conservative instead of addressing the concerns. Political correctness can be kind of fucked up and make reactionaries feel self-righteous when it's wielded by a bourgeoise homosexual or liberal feminist to dismiss the working class as sexist or homophobic because it's an even more elitist and cynical, condoning - of -exploitation mindset than the previous traditional conservative elite ever would be towards the working class. I don't want people to be tolerant and respectful of exploitation but I don't want people to be racist either.

You consistently argue that the proletariat is this mass of bigots, homophobes, and misogynists, and that we should accept their reactionary ideas in order to placate them. That's a pretty low opinion of workers. I don't think that all or even most of them are that reactionary. Also, it seems like you consider any attempt to educate people about acceptance and respect for their fellow human beings is some liberal bullshit.

Just come out and admit that you don't want to fight ignorance and you hold many reactionary ideas yourself. Why else would you constantly apologise for hate speech and bigotry?

[graffic]

You consistently argue that the proletariat is this mass of bigots, homophobes, and misogynists, and that we should accept their reactionary ideas in order to placate them. That's a pretty low opinion of workers.

Thats not even the point, but if you did want to go down that road actually what you've said is true. Studies repeatedly show that more leftists and liberals come from the middle classes.

I have more respect for people with socially conservative views but don't put in the energy to advocating them, instead putting said energy into helping the poor or class struggle than middle class liberals who exploit the poor whilst advocating socially liberal views.


Also, it seems like you consider any attempt to educate people about acceptance and respect for their fellow human beings is some liberal bullshit. If this debate had taken place 20 years ago that might be true however we are a much more tolerant and respectful society now. The church is a dying institution and homosexuals and women have equal rights in the workplace whilst the working class are still exploited.


Just come out and admit that you don't want to fight ignorance and you hold many reactionary ideas yourself. Why else would you constantly apologise for hate speech and bigotry?I haven't apologised for hate speech or bigotry.

[graffic]

You consistently argue that the proletariat is this mass of bigots, homophobes, and misogynists, and that we should accept their reactionary ideas in order to placate them. That's a pretty low opinion of workers. I don't think that all or even most of them are that reactionary. Also, it seems like you consider any attempt to educate people about acceptance and respect for their fellow human beings is some liberal bullshit.

Just come out and admit that you don't want to fight ignorance and you hold many reactionary ideas yourself. Why else would you constantly apologise for hate speech and bigotry?

Political correctness is a recent post WW2 phenomena with the shift in the global economy and balance of power to the American model. Was Marx politically correct? Was Trotsky or Che Guevera? Who cares if Marx was a homophobe. Why should that devalue any of what he said.

Politcial correctness is a modern phenomena that came at the same time as labour became more free-moving and capital flows were liberalized. Although it was good in the start, liberals can use it to dismiss the working class and advocate passive acceptance of cosmopolitan neo-liberalism and globalization.

I don't really care how the working class articulate their opposition to globalization and the free movement of labour, exploitation etc. There is no trouble separating a genuine fascist or racial bigot from someone who is not. Frankly, I consider the fact they are opposing it good enough even if they are not right all the time and still hold on to customs and tradition compared to passive "acceptance" of multi-cultural cosmopolitan exploitation which is depressing and morally duplicitous.

[Lowtech]

Political correctness is a recent post WW2 phenomena with the shift in the global economy and balance of power to the American model. Was Marx politically correct? Was Trotsky or Che Guevera? Who cares if Marx was a homophobe. Why should that devalue any of what he said.

Politcial correctness is a modern phenomena that came at the same time as labour became more free-moving and capital flows were liberalized. Although it was good in the start, liberals can use it to dismiss the working class and advocate passive acceptance of cosmopolitan neo-liberalism and globalization.

I don't really care how the working class articulate their opposition to globalization and the free movement of labour, exploitation etc. There is no trouble separating a genuine fascist or racial bigot from someone who is not. Frankly, I consider the fact they are opposing it good enough even if they are not right all the time and still hold on to customs and tradition compared to passive "acceptance" of multi-cultural cosmopolitan exploitation which is depressing and morally duplicitous.

The fact remains, if one is desperate to validate his outward rudeness, he's a child never taught manners. When a dick wants to be blunt, get blunt back. The reason these wannabe Larry the cable guy morons continue with the crap is because we tolerate them.

[Jason]

The reason these wannabe Larry the cable guy morons continue with the crap is because we tolerate them.

A lot of those guys really are "in your face" racists, they're not just being "cute". Wanna find out? Just do something they don't like (date a black girl).



The fact remains, if one is desperate to validate his outward rudeness, he's a child never taught manners.


I have a brother who chose to live in a black neighborhood, yet constantly complains about "PC police" who won't let him "be him self". :rolleyes:

[Popular Front of Judea]

I just finished listening to a Left Business Observer (Doug Henwood) podcast from last month. On it he interviewed Walter Benn Michaels who has among other things is the author of a book called 'The Trouble With Diversity'. Being on the left he has no problem with diversity per se. The issue is that a focus solely on diversity at the expense of class slots right into the neoliberal agenda.

He wrote a good article outlining his argument for the New Left Review back in 2008 provocatively titled 'Against Diversity'. (I am a newbie so I can't provide a direct link.)

[Popular Front of Judea]

*****

[Popular Front of Judea]

Note: May I suggest that instead of 'prick' or '****' we use the gender-neutral 'asshole'? :D


hmkHLiZMJeU

[Jason]

The worst example of PC in this new age is "ESL teachers in South Korea (but could also be applied to other nations)". First of all, they are hired because of racial discrimination among other things. Yet, they get on internet forums and ***** about how backward Koreans are, as well as complain about thier pampered well paid jobs (compared to other immigrants there). Though they realize racial discrimination is the source of thier income, they won't quit thier jobs, and still have a "holier than thou" attitude (including America bashing, as if denying people of color employment isn't also oppressive).

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Good ole days? Almost a quarter of the state voted for Pauline Hanson in the 90s. Or the Palm Island death in custody in 2004.

I was being sarcastic.

That said, racism is still alive and well in Australia, as evident by all these recent events. The reason I said that was to highlight the issue.

[Art Vandelay]

I was being sarcastic.

That said, racism is still alive and well in Australia, as evident by all these recent events. The reason I said that was to highlight the issue.

Don't worry about those who cannot appreciate nuance.

[Jason]

What I find wrong with the platform v no platform argument is its extremity.

It seems that you're either on the extreme no platform side, or the extreme 'freedom of speech' side.

As a leftist, I actually think it's to our advantage to take a more nuanced perspective. We are quite aware that fascism doesn't have a, shall we say, particularly logical intellectual underpinning. It's an ideology of hatred in theory, and has proven to be so in practice too. Thus, I don't think we should be afraid of any situation where we can debate (or any anti-fascist can debate) with a fascist in a moderated, relatively calm environment. That's why, looking back on it, having Nick Griffin on Question Time here was an absolute scalp as he was exposed as a complete twit, and as an Oxbridge alum he's supposed to be a more acceptable face of fascism! We've all seen what an idiot any EDL type comes across as - including and especially Stephen Lennon, their leader - every time they're interviewed on tv. We have nothing to fear from these sorts of situations.

Where no platform is valid, though, is situations where passion and the 'mass crowd' atmosphere is likely to lead to people being roused by these fascists in spite of inferior arguments. We need to control the fascists on the streets and give them no platform for hate speech to mass crowds in our towns and cities; it's provocative, dangerous and above all when they march through our cities especially, it's pretty uncomfortable for the type of people the far-right typically hate.

Right, I agree. There should be some sub-forum on here, or some seperate site, where fascists can be ripped apart by intellegent arguments. Note: It's impossible to go on Stormfront, because they ignore most good arguments, and bully you.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As others have said, the obsession with "PC" by the right is really a kind of political straw-man. It's one of the strategies they have used to de-legitimize the whole concept that there is oppression in the US (and UK). Along with so-called "reverse-racism" they don't argue "For" racist positions explicitly, rather they claim past mainstream (liberal) attempts to adress oppression (or at least the liberal responce to trying to quite the social movements of past decades) are another form of intolerance.

The ultimate irony is that in mainstream politics, it's the right who have gone the furthest in setting a what's "politically acceptable" and it's always ideological. Leftie professors/academics = not politically correct and should be pushed out of the universities. People who argue for seperation of church from secular istitutions = not politically acceptable and "bigots" against Christians. So time and time again when a right-wing figure talks all genocidal about Muslems or says something derrogatory about blacks then it's "PC gone mad!" if people make a stink. Meanhwhile those right-wingers keep their position, publish a book about their persacution and then get on air trying to prevent a Muslem religious center or trying to get some left-wing professor fired.

So it's a political fight and liberals (who've all basically abandoned any real push around this, save some empty gestures or preserving some of the programs from the past) pretend it's just some kind of misunderstanding.

IMO for the radical left, while obviously it would be good to not have people being openly racisit or sexist, and it would be good to break down barriers in the workplace and with public figures so that institutions are more open to people and can't discriminate, the specific liberalist "diversity" and "PC" are really just weak and empty gestures. In part I think the emergence of PC had to do with relative liberal-left strength left-over from the 60s and 70s movements but without the link to any real mass movements (or radical poltics). So they used institutional power in universities and in certain locations where there was a lot of support for sentiments about equality to try and make some reforms from above. Esentially though in the early 90s, the right called their bluff and since groups larger liberal groups like NOW that could have counter-fought the right on this were tied to Clinton and didn't want to "embarass" him, they held back from actually countering with anything more than rehtoric and legislation and so in effect they let the right take the initiative.

But IMO it's a white-wash. Maybe good intentioned, but it's a mutation of the more liberation-oriented politics of the decades before. Rather than fight to smash oppression, rather than actually take on the roots, PC can just mandate social civility from above at best. "Diversity" is often just as empty because it does nothing to adress why there needs to be systems to make sure that the oppressed are not excluded. Without any movement making demands about fair hiring or whatnot, "Diversity" certaintly can be co-opted into neo-liberal society.


I just finished listening to a Left Business Observer (Doug Henwood) podcast from last month. On it he interviewed Walter Benn Michaels who has among other things is the author of a book called 'The Trouble With Diversity'. Being on the left he has no problem with diversity per se. The issue is that a focus solely on diversity at the expense of class slots right into the neoliberal agenda.

He wrote a good article outlining his argument for the New Left Review back in 2008 provocatively titled 'Against Diversity'. (I am a newbie so I can't provide a direct link.)

Like I argued above, I do think this is coopted for the service of promoting the myths of our era, but I don't think that we should see this as "class vs. oppression" and I don't think that focusing on oppression and how to end it is opposed to class struggle at all. To focus only on oppression is a problem from a radical standpoint, because without a solid class understanding, it would be impossible to see how these oppressions operate in our society and how they are connected to how this society functions. However, to focus only on economic issues and class and not adress racism would be to miss a major part of how class rule and class dominance is maintained in our society.

[graffic]

The fact remains, if one is desperate to validate his outward rudeness, he's a child never taught manners. When a dick wants to be blunt, get blunt back. The reason these wannabe Larry the cable guy morons continue with the crap is because we tolerate them.

Wow a revolutionary concerned with good manners, worried about "rudeness".

I think we are talking about a different kind of political correctness. I don't think bigots racism or whatever should be condoned and the people normally complaining about political correctness are normally idiots.

What is "rude" is when feminism/lgbt political correctness attacks religion.

If working people choose to articulate their opposition to globalization, exploitation etc with a religious twist this seems to me to be better than secular humanists passively accepting cosmopolitan neo-liberalism and exploitation. I don't think the liberal elite should have any moral authority to attack people who hold traditional attitudes towards women and homosexuals whilst opposing exploitation morally and actively help the poor, when secular neo-liberals actively exploit the poor and morally condone exploitation.

[Comrade #138672]

The institution of marriage doesn't seem to me to be "rude". I think it's rude to force political correctness on religious institutions.So you are defending reactionary religious institutions? Nothing is forced on religious individuals. I don't see why we should defend religious institutions when these promote sexism, racism, chauvinism, apathy, bourgeois morality, etc. These institutions are responsible for a lot of oppression.


If working people choose to articulate their opposition to globalization, exploitation etc with a religious twist this seems to me to be better than secular humanists passively accepting cosmopolitan neo-liberalism and exploitation.Working-class religious people are not institutions, are they?

[graffic]

So you are defending reactionary religious institutions? Nothing is forced on religious individuals. I don't see why we should defend religious institutions when these promote sexism, racism, chauvinism, apathy, bourgeois morality, etc. These institutions are responsible for a lot of oppression.

I agree that the institutions are responsible for oppression in some cases. I'm not advocating defending religious institutions, I think people with faith who help the poor or who are involved with class struggle deserve more respect than middle class secular humanists who exploit the poor.

What do you mean by bourgeoisie morality? Exploitation is immoral. Secular humanist neo-liberalism is worse case scenario for the poor than a religious bourgeoisie. Marxism and workers struggles are "moral". Marx used words like "unjust" to describe exploitation not because he was a utilitarian consequentialist or humanist but because he genuinely believed that it exploitation was "wrong" because whether he was a believer in God, religious or not (he wasn't), his moral convictions would have been influenced by religious theology (Judaism(his grandfather was a rabbi)) than by anything else. The "resurgence of religion" in the world is welcome because it supplies a much needed moral dimension to secular politics.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Attacking racist workers with bricks does nothing but entrentch the divisions within the working class. Perhaps you have a point that the way people talk to others about the issues which divide us can have the same effect when we use insults and talk down to them in a patronizing manner.
Shouldn't this be the other way around?

[Popular Front of Judea]

I think @Jimmy Higgins said pretty much what can be said on the topic. I believe people should be held accountable for what they say. However keep in mind demanding such accountability without also also challenging economic inequality you may very well be doing the heavy lifting for neoliberalism. Overt discrimination is for contemporary neoliberalism sand in the gears, causing a loss of legitimacy.

This passage in Walter Benn Michaels article (see below) stood out to me:


It is the increasing gap between rich and poor that constitutes the inequality, and rearranging the race and gender of those who succeed leaves that gap untouched. In actually existing neoliberalism, blacks and women are still disproportionately represented both in the bottom quintile—too many—and in the top quintile—too few—of American incomes. In the neoliberal utopia that the Obama campaign embodies, blacks would be 13.2 per cent of the (numerous) poor and 13.2 per cent of the (far fewer) rich; women would be 50.3 per cent of both. For neoliberals, what makes this a utopia is that discrimination would play no role in administering the inequality; what makes the utopia neoliberal is that the inequality would remain intact.

[greenjuice]

Political correctness is not about being polite. Someone can be a racist and sexist totalitarian and still be polite.

Political correctness is about censoring the opposing views. I like to see reactionaries trying to give arguments for their views, mostly because they're rediculous, but I really don't see what harm can come from arguments.

I support Bakunin's programme laid out in the Revolutionary Catechism, where in the chapter Individual rights, the 4th point says:


Unlimited freedom of propaganda, speech, press, public or private assembly, with no other restraint than the natural salutary power of public opinion. Absolute freedom to organize associations even for allegedly immoral purposes including even those associations which advocate the undermining (or destruction) of individual and public freedom.

Freedom can and must be defended only by freedom: to advocate the restriction of freedom on the pretext that it is being defended is a dangerous delusion.

[Art Vandelay]

Political correctness is not about being polite. Someone can be a racist and sexist totalitarian and still be polite.

Political correctness is about censoring the opposing views. I like to see reactionaries trying to give arguments for their views, mostly because they're rediculous, but I really don't see what harm can come from arguments.

I support Bakunin's programme laid out in the Revolutionary Catechism, where in the chapter Individual rights, the 4th point says:

So would you support NAMBLA's right to organize? Let them enjoy a platform to propagate their views?

[greenjuice]

Yes. I would allow everyone to voice their opinion. Opinion, not babbling. Voice, not practice.

What is the opinion of you guys about another (controversial) topic- banning rape porn?

[Art Vandelay]

Yes. I would allow everyone to voice their opinion. Opinion, not babbling. Voice, not practice.

What is the opinion of you guys about another (controversial) topic- banning rape porn?

In all honesty I didn't even know that existed. That's kinda fucked up.

[thriller]

I think political correctness is... misleading? I am referring to the speech part of political correctness. Let me explain.

The media, politicians, and people in general look at the PC issue is terms of labels. It doesn't challenge their current notions of race and ethnicity in a multi-ethnic society. It simply helps them to know what proper labels to use for people in public so they don't sound or come off as racist or ignorant in public. I use the term Black American instead of African American. I apologize if that offends anyone (havn't run into anyone yet [other than my cousin]), but African American really doesn't get at the issue. I know a girl who is white but refers to herself as African American. Why? Because she is from South Africa. It's odd, but that is what she identifies as. I know a black man who refers to himself as English American, or just American. Because he is from the UK. Does the white African American and the black English American have the same experience in the US in regards to their race and ethnicity? I would say probably not. These labels have been invented to homogenize everyone into the perfect category. PC takes away from people the idea that they need to TREAT everyone with respect, and gives them the idea that simply calling them by "their" proper labels is good enough.

EDIT: I am not saying that people should call others racial, sexist, homophobic, etc, slurs. I am stating that it doesn't tackle the issue of how we treat each other and interact, which is where the real problem is.

[Yuppie Grinder]

political correctness is about being polite, showing respect.

you only really have an issue with political correctness if you're a right-wing, sexually repressed self righteous asshole. then suddenly you're desperately needing to justify being rude to everyone.

I just think this sort of identity politics is totally futile. Here's a good example of what I mean, we now call the mentally retarded the mentally handicapped because it is perceived as more respectful. Now that word is used with as much malice as the word retarded, so it is in turn replaced with "intellectually disabled", which of course soon takes on the same humiliating meaning.

[Lowtech]

I just think this sort of identity politics is totally futile. Here's a good example of what I mean, we now call the mentally retarded the mentally handicapped because it is perceived as more respectful. Now that word is used with as much malice as the word retarded, so it is in turn replaced with "intellectually disabled", which of course soon takes on the same humiliating meaning.

It is comical if say someone prefers the term person hole cover to manhole cover, however just the fact of pointing this out has no argument against being a polite and mature individual

[Ostrinski]

I just think this sort of identity politics is totally futile. Here's a good example of what I mean, we now call the mentally retarded the mentally handicapped because it is perceived as more respectful. Now that word is used with as much malice as the word retarded, so it is in turn replaced with "intellectually disabled", which of course soon takes on the same humiliating meaning.It doesn't have anything to do with identity politics. If black people decide that they don't want to be called 'nigger," gay people decide they don't want to be called 'faggot,' and women decide that they don't want to be called '****' then they are completely within reason to demand not only not to be called these things by other people but also for people who do transgress in this manner to be shamed/humiliated/whatever.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think political correctness is... misleading? I am referring to the speech part of political correctness. Let me explain.

The media, politicians, and people in general look at the PC issue is terms of labels. It doesn't challenge their current notions of race and ethnicity in a multi-ethnic society. It simply helps them to know what proper labels to use for people in public so they don't sound or come off as racist or ignorant in public. I use the term Black American instead of African American. I apologize if that offends anyone (havn't run into anyone yet [other than my cousin]), but African American really doesn't get at the issue. I know a girl who is white but refers to herself as African American. Why? Because she is from South Africa. It's odd, but that is what she identifies as. I know a black man who refers to himself as English American, or just American. Because he is from the UK. Does the white African American and the black English American have the same experience in the US in regards to their race and ethnicity? I would say probably not. These labels have been invented to homogenize everyone into the perfect category. PC takes away from people the idea that they need to TREAT everyone with respect, and gives them the idea that simply calling them by "their" proper labels is good enough.

EDIT: I am not saying that people should call others racial, sexist, homophobic, etc, slurs. I am stating that it doesn't tackle the issue of how we treat each other and interact, which is where the real problem is.

Well I think this is true, but some of it's more a critique of "identity politics" - which definately became popularized at the same time as the concept of "PC" and there is a lot of overlap because what's often considered "PC" was informed by an identity politics outlook.

Also outside of formal settings, I usually don't hear "African American" used as much as in the 90s when it was ubiquitious. Black folks in Oakland usually just say "Black" or "Folks" :lol:.

Outside of maybe campuses I don't think "language issues" are as big as they were in the 1990s. And where language does come up, it seems more to be for stright political reasons; like saying "undocumented immigrant" rather than "illegal immigrant" - no one thinks it's an issue of politeness, people see that it's a contested term with direct political implications. Even a lot of the old "PC" stuff isn't defended by most liberals and progressives because of the same fear people have of being termed "feminist" even if they are for women's rights. I think people recognize that it's ineffectual when it comes to material experience and so they don't defend it for fear of being called "PC police" and a buzzkill.

Sometimes language battles are important, but I think that's when it's in the context of an actual movement. I think PC is different than, for example, the civil rights movement normalizing "black" over "negro/nigger" or then the black power movement popularizing "afro-american" as an expression of increasing nationalist sentiment and solidarity/identification with African anti-colonial struggle. This is a social movement imposing itself into the mainstream. PC, on the other hand, didn't really have any roots outside of the husk of whatever was left of those social movements by the end of the 1980s - which would have been liberal Democratic politicians and community groups and some academic circles. So that's why I think it always seemed imposed even by those who supported the supposed anti-bigotry reasons behind the concept.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

"Waaaah, I want to say n****r and f****t but the 'thought police' won't let me, waaaah!! They're just words, you know? It's a free country. You can't even sing 'Bah Bah Black Sheep' anymore, and I REEEEALLY wanted to sing it, waaaaaAAAH!!"

^--- What I think of whenever Daily Mail readers moan about PC going mad.

[Luís Henrique]

political correctness is about being polite, showing respect.

Well, not exactly. It is about a weird kind of politization of politeness, in which you don't owe respect to other people because, well, they are people and should be respected as such, but because they somehow "represent" some group of people, and it is such group of people that should be respected.

Taken to extremes, it can lead to bizarre events, such as O. J. Simpson's acquittal, for instance - in which a quite obviously guilty Black man was exhonerated because so many innocent Black men were wrongly accused and sentenced.


you only really have an issue with political correctness if you're a right-wing, sexually repressed self righteous asshole. then suddenly you're desperately needing to justify being rude to everyone.Well, no. I really have issues with "political correctness", which I think is a mind trap for the left, in that it substitutes the suppression of discussion of inequality for the suppression of inequality, and I would not consider myself a right winger, much less a sexually repressed one, nor do I think I am in desperate need of justifying my quite mild rudeness to everyone.

But, of course, there are several different issues that people can have with "political correctness", and probably the most common are the complaints right wingers have about their supposed freedom of speech being violated because they cannot, as they like to say, "call a spade a spade".

To me, even this is also part of a right wing game, and is instrumental to displacing the public discourse from oppression to the appearance of oppression.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I just think this sort of identity politics is totally futile. Here's a good example of what I mean, we now call the mentally retarded the mentally handicapped because it is perceived as more respectful. Now that word is used with as much malice as the word retarded, so it is in turn replaced with "intellectually disabled", which of course soon takes on the same humiliating meaning.

Yup, that's like language works.

In Portuguese, the words that have more synonims are the words for devil, prostitute, and booze, and this is not a coincidence.

Also not coincidental is the fact that the words for "right" are all etymologically related in most Western European languages - right, droite, recht, direita, derecha, diritta, while the words for "left" are of quite diverse etymology - left, links, gauche, esquerda, sinistra, venster.

The social stigma attributed to things communicates to the words they refer to (and consequently wear out the words), not the other way round.

The fact that Blacks or gays are socially discriminated expresses itself linguistically not only or even mainly in the derogatory words used against them, but also in the fact that neutral words (and even positive words, such as gay!) used to refer to them eventually get loaded with negative connotations.

Luís Henrique

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

The fact that Blacks or gays are socially discriminated expresses itself linguistically not only or even mainly in the derogatory words used against them, but also in the fact that neutral words (and even positive words, such as gay!) used to refer to them eventually get loaded with negative connotations.

Luís Henrique

I loathe that, when I hear people use a group of people as negative adjectives ('Oh, that's so gay!')
Stop using these terms and use the correct adjective, not an idnetifiable group of people that, intentionally or not, you identify as having that characteristic (eg 'gay' = weird / wrong).
That goes for any group ('Dude, don't be such a woman / girl about it')
ARRGH just use the correct adjective for fuck sake!!

Apologies if I digressed

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Right, I agree. There should be some sub-forum on here, or some seperate site, where fascists can be ripped apart by intellegent arguments. Note: It's impossible to go on Stormfront, because they ignore most good arguments, and bully you.

I was talking more about public fora like radio and tv.

I in no way endorse having fascists on here. This has always been - and hopefully will always be - a fascist-free board.

[Luís Henrique]

I loathe that, when I hear people use a group of people as negative adjectives ('Oh, that's so gay!')
Stop using these terms and use the correct adjective, not an idnetifiable group of people that, intentionally or not, you identify as having that characteristic (eg 'gay' = weird / wrong).
That goes for any group ('Dude, don't be such a woman / girl about it')
ARRGH just use the correct adjective for fuck sake!!

Apologies if I digressed

Ya; the problem is that people do that because being gay, or a woman, or a girl, is socially looked down at. And so, as long as that isn't changed, people will keep doing it.

Luís Henrique

[Jason]

One excuse the anti-PC crowd gives is: "Well, everybody is racist so why I can't be?". But all in all, a weak excuse for bigotry. But it is true that racial hatred isn't a "white only" phenomenon by any means. Another excuse the anti-PC crowd gives is: "Well, people complaining about bigotry are thin skinned babies :crying:." They think we need to live in a tough society where verbal abuse is stretched to the max. BTW: What do Rev Lefters think of Marine Corps drill instructors?

What about people who are PC, unless the victim is a political enemy? :cursing: For instance, take liberals mocking Sarah Palin's kid.

[Dog]

Ya; the problem is that people do that because being gay, or a woman, or a girl, is socially looked down at.

Uh, how are females "looked down at"?


And so, as long as that isn't changed, people will keep doing it.


Nonsense. The reason men are derided for acting effeminate is because they're men - they're supposed to act like men, not because our society despises women.

[Luís Henrique]

They think we need to live in a tough society where verbal abuse is stretched to the max.

Indeed some seem to think that we need to live in a society where everything is the worse possible.


What about people who are PC, unless the victim is a political enemy? :cursing: For instance, take liberals mocking Sarah Palin's kid.

I am not sure mocking rednecks is against political correctness. Maybe that changed, but Sasha Cohen used to get away pretty with his disgracefully elitist and prejudiced films (hahaha, the oldest person in the town is 49, being old before your years and dying young is so incredibly funny!) without being called on his lack of "political correctness".

Luís Henrique

[Popular Front of Judea]

I am not sure mocking rednecks is against political correctness. Maybe that changed, but Sasha Cohen used to get away pretty with his disgracefully elitist and prejudiced films (hahaha, the oldest person in the town is 49, being old before your years and dying young is so incredibly funny!) without being called on his lack of "political correctness"

Mocking "rednecks", rural working-class European-Americans, may or may not be "PC" -- but it is emphatically poor politics. (Joe Bageant we miss you.)

[Luís Henrique]

Mocking "rednecks", rural working-class European-Americans, may or may not be "PC" -- but it is emphatically poor politics. (Joe Bageant we miss you.)

Ah yes, that it is. Or rather classist politics against the working poor.

Luís Henrique

[Jason]

Nonsense. The reason men are derided for acting effeminate is because they're men - they're supposed to act like men, not because our society despises women.


Being like a "girl or woman" isn't the same as being childish. Being childish is nearly universally annoying to people. So "being childish" is what's being attacked.

[Quail]

Nonsense. The reason men are derided for acting effeminate is because they're men - they're supposed to act like men, not because our society despises women.
Men acting in a womanlike manner is frowned upon because women and traditionally feminine characteristics are seen as inferior to men and traditionally male characteristics.

[Jason]

I doubt if effeminate men are bothering average people. They are simply targeted as fodder for bullies. Because no man is "man enough" for these chauvanistc assholes. Even if someone did act manly, then they would be attacked for being a foreigner or too short. The problem is not with the gay man, but with thier attackers.

[#FF0000]

Uh, how are females "looked down at"?

Don't you think women are seen as less competent than men, generally speaking?

[Comrade Nasser]

Well I do agree that being politically correct all the time can be somewhat annoying but that doesn't mean you can go around calling people name's and racial slurs. If I hear that shit when I walk down the street I call the person out on it and they usually have some excuse to how they're "not racist" or "not homophobic. Lies I tell you, lies.

[Nico Belic]

Have read through most of the posts, political correctness isn't just 'being polite' its a form of policing what you can and cannot say, regardless if it is truth. It's also highly untrue that complaints regarding political correctness are localised to the right wing, in fact its a pretty silly generalization.

To say everyone who disagrees with this policy 'is a daily mail fascist' is as good as me saying every communist supports Stalin, and therefore advocates genocide. Pretty ridiculous really.

In effect, political correctness is a kind of oppression, whereas you cannot speak out if indeed what you intend to say will offend someone. To explain what I mean, I could claim that mohammad was a violent and genocidal maniac. This is obviously going to offend a whole religion, but what if there was merit in my claim? What if I could back it up? Well I'd still be told to pipe down, because it is considered politically incorrect to make such an argument. In this case, political correctness has silenced the truth, and silencing the truth is what annoys me.

[#FF0000]

words

Kinda wondering what it means to be violent in the middle east circa 600 AD.Even so, you kinda have to ask why would people be uncomfortable with that kind of thing -- and that's because muslims are frequently targeted for ethnic and religious persecution and harassment in much of the west today.
Anyway yeah, political correctness is pretty much just a hella clumsy agreement towards a formally inclusive language (paraphrasing stewart lee there -- I liked his definition a lot).

[Petrol_Bomb]

It's a really complicated issue. I think there is a difference between being PC and being a staunch advocate of social justice. The former will demand that all views that offend him or her be censored, they will go on the offensive against the ignorant instead of trying to educate, and think they have a right to never be challenged. And usually they are just liberals trying to look good in front of their "progressive" friends. Being a staunch advocate of social justice entails not being afraid to engage, argue, and enlighten those who hold hostile views, as opposed to just trying to shut down opposing views. Now here's the important part: None of that means giving fascists a platform. Letting them march through the streets is dangerous. Many of them aren't simply ignorant, they are genocidal. I think you can say whatever the fuck you want whenever the fuck you want, but you have to deal with the reactions from the people you are targeting. If you want to stand on a street corner and preach about the evils of Jews and Muslim, the state shouldn't censor you, but don't be surprised when you catch a flying brick.

[sixdollarchampagne]

Good for Petrol Bomb! I cannot stand people who want to censor everyone else, but insist that their own views must never be challenged. And I absolutely agree that people should have the right to say whatever they please. The most repressive situations I have ever been in, were two liberal academic environments, where it was understood that losing one's temper and saying what you thought was grounds for getting fired. In a world run by liberals, everyone is expected to engage in constant self-censorship. Bunch of liberal crap! Three cheers for Petrol Bomb and for free speech!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe the words have different connotations in the US, but I tend to associate them with whining reactionaries who blame "political correctness" for the fact that they can no longer freely refer to certain groups using offensive or loaded terms.

http://i45.tinypic.com/3346ur5.jpg

"It's political correctness GONE MAD!!!" - Richard Littlejohn