Political correctness turning people to the far-right?

[spartan]

It is my opinion that political correctness is turning more and more people to far-right politics and mindsets.

I see it on forums I go on which are infested with people with far-right views. What I see from them is not racism or sexism for it's own sake, but hatred of a society that has seemingly gone insane when it comes to stuff like this.

Indeed making things like not openly talking about politically incorrect issues such as race and gender and people's roles in society unpopular has the opposite effect and makes people want to embrace these things as they are the opposite ideals of what they hate so much; political correctness.

Isn't that called reverse psychology or something? Except in this case it isn't to persuade people into these politically incorrect mindsets, but is an unintended result of their politically correct society stifling open debate.

Political correctness is building frustration and resentment amongst alot of people in our society and is probably helping the rise of far-right parties.

What do we as leftists do with this situation?

The politically correct view that you shouldn't hurt someone because of their race or sex is a positive one, but when it means that debate about these things aren't welcome in wider society the consequence is that it leads to politically incorrect views becoming prevalent amongst those who are sick and tired of political correctness.

EDIT: When I say debating about issues of race and sex I am personally not advocating such a thing I am merely using it as an example (just to clear any potential confusion).

[trivas7]

Personally, I ignore anything labeled PC as the jargon-du-jour; nothing is more transient than contemporary fashion.

[jake williams]

There's some possibility, but I doubt there's much of an affect. There is some terminological annoyance, sure. Further the notion of restricting conversation in the meaningful sense is a real concern that we have to be wary about.

But I think a lot of these right wing people you're talking about are just angry white males who when they go on about things having "gone too far" are less concerned about words and more concerned about actual meaningful equality for women and non-white people. It's too bad if they don't like it.

[RHIZOMES]

I disagree. I would say it's people who are already racist who are mad about how they can't say racist things.

[Mindtoaster]

I disagree. I would say it's people who are already racist who are mad about how they can't say racist things.

QFT

I do think political correctness can be a bit silly at times, but most the people I know who really get worked up about it are already racists themselves.

[jake williams]

QFT

I do think political correctness can be a bit silly at times, but most the people I know who really get worked up about it are already racists themselves.
Thirded.

[Conquer or Die]

I've heard two people in person use "PC" (one of them was a post far left african studies major, the other was a professor of English who declared himself a Berkeley liberal) as a way to emphasize their disgust (though it was minute) at certain facets of society. I guess in liberal academia they might feel pressured to conform to certain tenets they don't agree with. There is a movie called P.C.U. which mocks this behavior as uptight.

In my opinion the term was manufactured to stifle criticism against intolerance . I believe it was Jesus who said that kindness was the root of all evil, after all.

[Lector Malibu]

I disagree. I would say it's people who are already racist who are mad about how they can't say racist things.

This.

[communard resolution]

It is my opinion that political correctness is turning more and more people to far-right politics and mindsets.

To my experience, most people who claim they're against 'political correctness' and for free debate are people who are right-wing to begin with. It's a vacuous term they use to discredit everything that's to the left of them. It's in fact them who try to silence dissenters by calling their views 'politically correct'. Have you not noticed that pretty much anything that isn't right-wing is called 'politically correct' these days?

Having said that, some people who are really fairly apolitical or just not that sussed out fall for that too. I suppose it's because 'politically correct' has such a totalitarian, conformist ring to it. Once you've accepted that leftist is synonymous with 'politically correct', it's easy to imagine yourself as a rebel against some non-existent leftist status quo: even if the majority of society is far from being leftist, in your mind YOU are the one who's nonconformist because you are "incorrect".

The power is in the word itself - there's really nothing more to it.

It's a nasty strategy of the right, and a fairly successful one at that. I've been thinking for a while that there is really only one way we can change that: we should turn tables and start calling conservatives 'politically correct'.

I know a guy who used to think of me as 'politically correct' for being a leftist. He is not far-right or a Nazi, but a flag-waving, let's-curb-immigration, pro-capitalist, patriotic type. He too used to imagine himself as a rebel against 'political correctness' and took great pleasure in making statements that he imagined would 'offend' my leftist sensibilities. So I responded by insulting the flag, insulting the nation, etc. I also told him that the day the revolution comes, I would take a bus to the suburbs to personally slice his rich parents' throats and put the rest of his family on a train to Siberia. When he got upset, I asked him: "What's the problem, does your right-wing political correctness not allow me to express my views?"

Doesn't hurt to sometimes go over the top a bit while having a sense of humour about it.

As for the far right, I genuinely think it takes more than just perceived 'political correctness' to actually turn people to the far right.


Indeed making things like not openly talking about politically incorrect issues such as race and gender and people's roles in society unpopularI don't really see how debate is stifled by the left. Race? There are several threads on here dedicated to this issue, and it's discussed in detail, from many different perspectives - and not everybody holds the same opinion. Gender? Likewise. I think it's key to show those opposed to 'political correctness' that we are not a bunch of nice, sensitive, easily offended liberals who encourage conformism. Again, I think it's a good thing to have a sense of humour.

What do you personally think are the taboos, or issues that we aren't supposed to talk about?

The only instances in which I personally see debate being stifled by leftists are those cases in which we throw 'isms' at people to shut them up and 'win' the debate. Happens a lot on revleft too. So, instead of actually discussing someone's view, many find it easier to simply label that opinion 'reactionary', 'fascist', 'bourgeois', 'reductionist', 'liberal', 'sexist', etc without further explanation. I've been called a 'Fascist' in one thread, for reasons that are too ridiculous to mention.

This approach will obviously not help anyone understand your point of view - aside from shutting them up it will merely make them feel inadequate, and possibly give them the impression that they're not entitled to their opinion.

I say: more actual discussion, less labels.

[Mr. Money Bags]

Freedom of speech shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of a few tender souls. The truth is often hurtful. But that is no reason to disregard it. Only by acknowledging the truth can social issues be dealt with effectively.

I believe that among the politically correct there are some with sinister intentions. Think about the removal of christmas decorations for example. I've yet to hear a single ethnic say that christmas decorations offend them and yet they are being taken down. This can only be construed as an attack on western culture.

I saw an article from an English news site that wrote of Britain's plan to take sniffer dogs out of airports because they offend Muslims. So basically, Britain is leaving itself vulnerable because they don't want to offend the very people who are most likely to blow them up! Oh, the irony.

So, to wrap things up, political correctness is lunacy, it prevents us from contamplating the use of many viable solutions to problems that arise, and the sooner we fuck it off the better. :cool:

[Bud Struggle]

I disagree. I would say it's people who are already racist who are mad about how they can't say racist things.

No doubt. But is it better to know who these people are and know what they are thinking or is it better to drive them underground? That's the good thing about sites like Stormfront--these people can get their issues out in the open, as absurd as they are and if you care to visit their site--you see how really pathetic they are. Nothing wrong with that.

But further: the problem with political correctness is not that it stops racist and similar comments--it's that it stifels debate on the best way to solve actual problems in society. The "leftests" have their particular PC solutions to societial issues and any other solution no matter if it works or doesn't work won't even be considered.

Besides, free speech is more important than people's feeling, it is one of the founding principals of a free and open society.

PC makes for a very "1984" world.

[apathy maybe]

What is "political correctness"?

It is a means of communication that does not involve insulting dis-empowered groups (among other things).

Take an of example:
All niggers are thieves.

This case is obviously not "politically correct", it is obviously insulting and to use such language is to insult "black" people.

Or maybe, we could talk about "faggots", "spics", or that fact that you are such a "jew" and don't "gyp" me...

Basically, there is a dreadful misunderstanding of what "political correctness" actually is in this thread, especially in the original post.

Of course, a sustained effort by the right wing is partially responsible for this misunderstanding.

To quote Wikipedia:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups. Conversely, the term "politically incorrect" is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy.
(My bold.)
(It used to be the case that the Wikipedia article was a cesspit of crap, and it was the first article that I ever got my hands dirty on, trying to remove the right-wing crap. I haven't read the entire article, so it may still include crap, but at least the introduction isn't too bad.)

So yeah, fuck off with ignorance! (And define your fucking terms before you start threads, at least in your own fucking mind! If you don't know what something means, look it up before you post.)

[apathy maybe]

Freedom of speech shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of a few tender souls. The truth is often hurtful. But that is no reason to disregard it. Only by acknowledging the truth can social issues be dealt with effectively.

I believe that among the politically correct there are some with sinister intentions. Think about the removal of christmas decorations for example. I've yet to hear a single ethnic say that christmas decorations offend them and yet they are being taken down. This can only be construed as an attack on western culture.

I saw an article from an English news site that wrote of Britain's plan to take sniffer dogs out of airports because they offend Muslims. So basically, Britain is leaving itself vulnerable because they don't want to offend the very people who are most likely to blow them up! Oh, the irony.

So, to wrap things up, political correctness is lunacy, it prevents us from contamplating the use of many viable solutions to problems that arise, and the sooner we fuck it off the better. :cool:

Says the white, heterosexual, probably christian, probably not poor, male. You probably have never been discriminated against in your life you fucking wanker. Fuck off with you.

(And are you by chance a former member? Perhaps one that got banned?)

[pusher robot]

What is "political correctness"?

It is a means of communication that does not involve insulting dis-empowered groups (among other things).

Take an of example:
All niggers are thieves.

This case is obviously not "politically correct", it is obviously insulting and to use such language is to insult "black" people.

Or maybe, we could talk about "faggots", "spics", or that fact that you are such a "jew" and don't "gyp" me...

Basically, there is a dreadful misunderstanding of what "political correctness" actually is in this thread, especially in the original post.

Of course, a sustained effort by the right wing is partially responsible for this misunderstanding.

To quote Wikipedia:

(My bold.)
(It used to be the case that the Wikipedia article was a cesspit of crap, and it was the first article that I ever got my hands dirty on, trying to remove the right-wing crap. I haven't read the entire article, so it may still include crap, but at least the introduction isn't too bad.)

So yeah, fuck off with ignorance! (And define your fucking terms before you start threads, at least in your own fucking mind! If you don't know what something means, look it up before you post.)

AM, you need to accept the fact that word definitions are 100% socially constructed. Which means, if most people think a term means a certain thing, then that is in fact what the term means, even if you personally wish it were otherwise.

[RGacky3]

In the United States political correctness is more of a Media thing, its like busting celebrities for cheating, they catch them saying nigger, or making a racist joke or something and blow it up out of preportion.

Its really just an entertainment thing as far as Im' concerned, and something that people should'nt really care about that much, who cares if dog the bounty hunter is racist, or makes a racist joke.

I personally think the best reaction for racism is looking at it for what it really is, stupid, ignorant, and really pathetic, rather than looking at it as offensive or shocking. Now thats for real racism, I think nower days a lot of people interpret things that don't nessesarily imply racist feelings as being racist and thats not honest as well, i.e. If a guy makes a racist joke, that does'nt nessesarily mean he's racist, humor is humor.

A perfect example of this is the guy who's pissed off about 300 for being fascist entertainment, which I've heard from other people before, at this point your just looking for something to be offended at.

Now in other countries, where its become law, thats crossing the line between just attitudes and reactions to law, and freedom of speach must be 100% free to be freedom of speach.


You probably have never been discriminated against in your life you fucking wanker. Fuck off with you.


First of all, you don't know that, second of all it does'nt make a difference, third of all, why not read what he read rather than attacking his supposed background, fourth, your just being emotional, which is'nt good for rational arguments.


It's a nasty strategy of the right, and a fairly successful one at that. I've been thinking for a while that there is really only one way we can change that: we should turn tables and start calling conservatives 'politically correct'.

I agree, its interesting that no one calls a guy on the news attacking a man calling him a communist or whatever, for being somewhat pro-labor or pro-treating immigrants as humans as being politically correct, when thats exactly what he's doing.

Its funny that any form of Worker initiative to control their workplace is very very taboo in the states still.

Remember the McCarthy days? Political correctness that was much worse than crucifying some celebrities for maybe having said something racist.

[trivas7]

I know a guy who used to think of me as 'politically correct' for being a leftist. He is not far-right or a Nazi, but a flag-waving, let's-curb-immigration, pro-capitalist, patriotic type. He too used to imagine himself as a rebel against 'political correctness' and took great pleasure in making statements that he imagined would 'offend' my leftist sensibilities.
It's part of the American psyche that he is always a rebel. :rolleyes:

[communard resolution]

It's part of the American psyche that he is always a rebel. :rolleyes:

He's British, though.

[apathy maybe]

AM, you need to accept the fact that word definitions are 100% socially constructed. Which means, if most people think a term means a certain thing, then that is in fact what the term means, even if you personally wish it were otherwise.If most "normal" people consider "hackers" to be people who break into computers and cause damage and mischief, is that the correct definition, and the only one that should be used?


First of all, you don't know that, second of all it does'nt make a difference, third of all, why not read what he read rather than attacking his supposed background, fourth, your just being emotional, which is'nt good for rational arguments.
I don't "know" that, but I strongly suspect it is the case, otherwise he wouldn't have been such a fucking wanker about it. It does make a difference, because those who have been discriminated against, are more likely to object to further discrimination, either against them or against others. I did read his tripe, and it is just tripe, and isn't worth responding to otherwise. And I made a perfectly good, rational, serious argument just above that post.

[communard resolution]

It does make a difference, because those who have been discriminated against, are more likely to object to further discrimination, either against them or against others. OK this is slightly off-topic, but I don't think what you're saying here is accurate. Many members of discriminated-against minorities are actually very hateful of other minorities. There seems to be an unfortunate mechanism that makes people who are discriminated against look for other minority groups to act it out on. I'm not generalising or claiming this is the case with every single person, but the phenomenon definitely exists.

[pusher robot]

If most "normal" people consider "hackers" to be people who break into computers and cause damage and mischief, is that the correct definition, and the only one that should be used?

Ummm...yes? Is this a trick question? Using a word that you know full well has a meaning to your audience different than the one you intend is sophistry, plain and simple.

[GPDP]

Hate to say it, but pusher has a point. It's like with the words we associate with as leftists. Socialism, communism, anarchism, democracy... all these words have a distinct meaning in mainstream society that differs quite radically from what they used to mean, and still means in leftist circles. Socialism is big government and nationalizations, communism is totalitarian state control of both the economy and society, anarchism is chaos and disorder, and democracy is electing representatives.

All these definitions have meanings we, here at RevLeft, would consider canonical, but to the average joe, who gives a shit what Marx said communism is? Communism, as far as they know, was practiced in Russia, and put millions in gulags.

So it is with political correctness. You can argue about what being politically correct is all day long, but people already have their own idea of what it means. Blame the media, bourgeois hegemony, a stagnating society, whatever. That's the reality, and if you want to take back these words, you're in for a hard time.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This.

I agree. What people I've encountered who are actually at "war" with whatever can be called "PC," they all could be classified as racist, homophobic, or sexist. Apparently not calling a mentally challenged person "worthless" is PC. There is a user on the internets by the pseudo-identity of BillyBob claiming to not be a racist, yet he freely uses the n word and attacks King as being a negroid. :rolleyes:

[turquino]

I will make a politically incorrect statement:
"Fuck the troops."
Now where are my anti-PC defenders?

[RGacky3]

It does make a difference, because those who have been discriminated against, are more likely to object to further discrimination, either against them or against others.

Historically thats not always been the case.

Also hearing someone saying something offensive, stupid and racist is not being discriminated against.


"Fuck the troops."

Right here, Fuck em.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I disagree with the OP, and think that spartan has fallen for far-right propaganda. It is the norm for racists, homophobes etc. to blame the "PC brigade" for trying to silence them whenever moves are taken to prevent the spread of their bigotry. Accordingto them this "PC brigade" is some sort of monolithic and heterogeneous entity comprising of the state, the mainstream media, minority and civil rights groups and the centre- and far-left which is intent on silencing any opposition to its multicultural agenda. This is not an exaggeration, it is actually what people think. This thread (http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=164&t=38617&st=0&sk=t&sd=a) on an Irish political website about a journalist who is being investigated by Irish police for incitement to hatred provides a good example of this. If you're interested I voice my views on the subject about half way down the second page (a bit further), under the alias "evercloserunion".

[apathy maybe]

I will make a politically incorrect statement:
"Fuck the troops."
Now where are my anti-PC defenders?

How is that "politically incorrect"? How does that insult a "minority" group?

Fuck the troops, but the troops are not being discriminated against by mainstream society.

[communard resolution]

How is that "politically incorrect"? How does that insult a "minority" group?

Fuck the troops, but the troops are not being discriminated against by mainstream society.

Turquino is spot on! He's politically incorrect according to our new definition. From now on, we're calling all right-wing thought "politically correct". It's called turning the tables, Sir! :thumbup:

[Bud Struggle]

Turquino is spot on! He's politically incorrect according to our new definition. From now on, we're calling all right-wing thought "politically correct". It's called turning the tables, Sir!

Yea, that sounds like a plan. :rolleyes:

Hey kids! Let's rewrite the dictionary! :thumbup:

[communard resolution]

Yea, that sounds like a plan. :rolleyes:

Hey kids! Let's rewrite the dictionary! :thumbup:

Of course, why not! Words change their meaning over time. Let's spread the virus! :thumbup::thumbup:

[Bud Struggle]

Of course, why not! Words change their meaning over time. Let's spread the virus! :thumbup::thumbup:

Touche!

(I hate it when you Communist have a sense of humor. :( )

[spartan]

I disagree with the OP, and think that spartan has fallen for far-right propaganda.

I think that you are right.

I do however see increasingly apolitical people being frustrated by what they see as political correctness in society.

One person told me "If you have a government that has to tell us (black and white people) to be nice to each other, then what does that say about race relations in this country?".

I of course said that this meant that race relations aren't as rosy as the mainstream media likes to make it out to be and that this is because of the economic position of non-whites, to which he replied "Or perhaps it's because we just can't get along?".

I disagreed but it left me feeling that not debating about this and showing these people that the reason things aren't great between races is not because we just can't get along, but because of their economic position which forces them into crime and shit which this person didn't like and associated with non-whites (which I also pointed out was an unfair generalisation).

There was also a guy on a political debate program who said that the recent "positive discrimination" bill forcing employers to employ more non-white people is a "waste of legislation" as "people with common sense and an eye for business don't need to be told who they need to employ" (implying that employers want to employ the best people for the job possible and that choosing people based on their race, and not their abilities, is wrong and bad for business).

[Bud Struggle]

You know--you have to remember your are fighting for the hearts and minds of everyday, real people--never to win debates.

[Conquer or Die]

A perfect example of this is the guy who's pissed off about 300 for being fascist entertainment, which I've heard from other people before, at this point your just looking for something to be offended at.

To defend myself I never once called for governmental or private censorship or even a boycott against the film. Moreover, I was concerned with the fascist content in "300" and the messages behind it that Frank Miller and Zach Snyder seemingly support. To say that I'm just looking for something to be offended at is equivalent to saying that people who take gumption with Bill O'Reilley or Ann Coulter are just looking for something to be offended at. That reduces political discourse to substance nothing, when in actuality it influences a lot of people. "300" is a film that I saw as an influencer of fascist thought.

[al8]

I would gladly be politically right then politically wrong any day.

[pusher robot]

To defend myself I never once called for governmental or private censorship or even a boycott against the film. Moreover, I was concerned with the fascist content in "300" and the messages behind it that Frank Miller and Zach Snyder seemingly support. To say that I'm just looking for something to be offended at is equivalent to saying that people who take gumption with Bill O'Reilley or Ann Coulter are just looking for something to be offended at. That reduces political discourse to substance nothing, when in actuality it influences a lot of people. "300" is a film that I saw as an influencer of fascist thought.

Fine, whatever your reasons for posting that thread be what they may, I think it's unreasonable to argue that there isn't a problem with people either being overly sensitive, or worse, faking offense in order to gain political power.

[Conquer or Die]

Fine, whatever your reasons for posting that thread be what they may, I think it's unreasonable to argue that there isn't a problem with people either being overly sensitive, or worse, faking offense in order to gain political power.

Well the former is pretty harmless. People who are overly sensitive don't do much damage. People who do damage, and refuse to be criticized due to sensitivity are cheats and don't deserve any shield - articulated as PC or not. Moreover, science and academia shouldn't explore things because they feel it may trip over some feet. Science and academia imposing things forcefully, be they politically correct or incorrect, isn't good, period.

Politicians faking things to get power is pernicious and treasonous.

[IcarusAngel]

PC makes for a very "1984" world.

And TomK has added to yet another misinterpretation of the novel. Congratulations.

And, I'd rather live in a society that was debating whether certain words were ethnically offensive or not, rather than a society that was embroiled in violent, ethnic conflict.

Can PC go over the line? Yes. Is it generally a bad thing? Absolutely not. We should try and be conscience of other people and respect different viewpoints.

Pointless ethnic and religious conflicts simply further the delay of class conflict.

[IcarusAngel]

I agree. What people I've encountered who are actually at "war" with whatever can be called "PC," they all could be classified as racist, homophobic, or sexist. Apparently not calling a mentally challenged person "worthless" is PC. There is a user on the internets by the pseudo-identity of BillyBob claiming to not be a racist, yet he freely uses the n word and attacks King as being a negroid. :rolleyes:

Well put.

Most leftists are smart enough to see through these claims of "PC," anyway, as shown in the thread.

Plus, the conservatives who are always talking about "PC" never mention their own version of "PC" anyway: "patriotically correct." For instance, questioning America's past interventions into foreign countries is "anti-American." Questioning Bush's anti-terror measures is "anti-American." Teaching political science is "anti-American." The ACLU is "anti-American." Not wearing a flag lapel is "anti-American," and on and on and on.

Notice how the consrevative version of "PC" is a lot closer to totalitarianism.

[Sendo]

The problem with the term PC is that everyone's got different definitions of what it means so it makes it harder to poll people's stances on it. Some people hear the term and think of being super-sensitive, never using strong language, and never using normative language. Others think it means a bare minimum of respect for human beings and not being allowed to say prejudicial comments based on ethnicity, gender, etc.

The important thing is the usage of language and less the language itself, methinks. I try to say "rip" instead of "Gyp" and break the habit because I finally one day realized it referred to the Romany people and likened them to scam artists. One the other hand, I'm one of the last people to use phrases like African-American, or say "Congresspersons". For the second it should be common sense that "man" at the end of a word is gender neutral and I don't feel I should have to add some a word from an outside tongue (person from Latin) to get my points across. I'm sorry English is the way it is. Does it help that I say the suffix with as a de-stressed syllable with a schwa instead of an ash sound for the letter "a", pronouncing it like "meun"?

As far as "African-American" goes, it brings up everything I hate about PC speech. It's often used to cushion racist statements. I've always believed what you say is what matters, not the way you say it.
I might say "colored people really get shafted by the power structure in California". Many today get shocked by the word "colored" but I only mean it to use non-white in a general sense of not coming from the traditionally white and British background of which the ruling class is mostly made up.
On the other hand, I've heard statements like "African-Americans tend to...." and I think, 'oh boy, here comes a racist generalization padded by the keyword of african-american'.

Words that are always wrong, however, might be stuff like "slant-eyes" because that insults the way a person is ethnically. I might say "Japs", however in private conversation, with no negative tone of voice when discussing a historical matter because I get tired of saying "the Japanese people" over and over and over again in the same conversation.

There's plenty of latent, but EXTREMELY racist behavior I witness from many whites in North America. As anyone heard the story one friend tells of the "jacked, scary, black guy they saw in the alley coming out of a bar one night" and get "sketched out, LOLZ!!1!" If the guy is big and scary (for whatever prejudicial reasons aside right now), then why would you need to add that he happened to be black?? I always interrupt whenever I hear anybody say that to say "Oh, right, because big scary black dudes are much more dangerous than big scary white dudes, as we all know."

[Conquer or Die]

Another manifestation of the hatred of "PC" in culture could come from the "Save the whales" vision that many people have of extreme liberalism. Disconnected and largely ignorant youths who spend their time worrying about distant problems with which they, or the people around them, probably have little to do with. I see this as two-faced. On the one hand, if leftists are busying arguing about everything all the time they are seen as angry or boring. On the other hand, many issues need to be fought over and discussed. This is precisely the theory of the film "P.C.U" which is that people essentially need to chill out. Again, I see it as two sided.

[spartan]

And, I'd rather live in a society that was debating whether certain words were ethnically offensive or not, rather than a society that was embroiled in violent, ethnic conflict.

Can PC go over the line? Yes. Is it generally a bad thing? Absolutely not. We should try and be conscience of other people and respect different viewpoints.

Pointless ethnic and religious conflicts simply further the delay of class conflict.

The point I was making was that political correctness is probably leading people to ethnic conflict due to the negativity the majority of people associate with it.

Why do I have to be told to be nice to someone who has different skin colour from me? Can't I be trusted to make that decision myself?

And if the majority of people can't be trusted to be nice to people who are different to them (and have to be constantly reminded) then what does this say about the society that they live in?

People naturally don't like being told what they can and can't do unless their livelihoods depend on it (say like in wartime).

Being told to be good to others who are different from you will probably have the opposite result (which is far worse).

This is why I see many apolitical people get really angry at pointless cases of political correctness. This leads them to favouring political incorrectness (as it is the opposite of what they despise) which is right-wing politics (end of apolitical beliefs and the start of a new conservative).

This is one of the factors in the recent rise of far-right parties and politics in my opinion.

[pusher robot]

Well the former is pretty harmless. People who are overly sensitive don't do much damage.

Wrong-o there, bub. The student who gets a tenured professor suspended for using the word "niggardly" is not harmless. The woman who gets her male co-workers fired because she overhears them relating a sexual joke from "Seinfeld" is not harmless. Being threatened with termination for reading a book about the history of the of the KKK is not harmless. Being hauled before a human rights commission for publishing a bestselling book is not harmless. Being publicly libeled as a racist is not harmless. Trying to change the language to purge such non-sexisms as "woman" and "history" is not harmless either.

It's these kinds of hysterical over-reactions that lead people to conclude that the issue isn't really offense; otherwise, wouldn't a sincere apology be enough? Rather, the real purpose seems to be simple power: get your enemy fired, harass them with quasi-judicial proceedings, bankrupt them in court, or destroy their reputation, and otherwise use the pretext of your offense to get publicity for yourself and destroy other people's lives.

[Sendo]

Wow, there's actually people who have a beef with the word "HISTORY"??? As in they think the term is not from Latin, but rather a sexist term coined from "HIS" and "TORY"??

Of course! It means "his conservative party" that explains so MUCH.

It's up there with "Merry Christmas" *****ers. My Jewish friend said it never bothered him to be told "Merry Christmas". Obviously I don't say "Merry Christmas" to people I KNOW are non-Christian, but I think Happy Holidays is VERY condescending. It assumes "Well, Christians like to celebrate Dec 25th a lot, but other religions exist, and since those other religions must be cheap imitations of Christianity (the true religion) I can safely assume that they must have an important holiday this Decemebr and never anytime else!"

The whole CE and BCE really pisses me off, too. ACN and AD (or BC and AD for those of you who like to be inconsistent) are just terms and they're not even based on the real birth year of Yeshua ben Yosef (4 ACN ?). I accept that ACN and AD are based on Christians' calendar. It admits that much. If you have to accept the Christian dating system, you have indeed lost a battle to Christian cultural imperialism (if you care, that is). Calling it "before common era" and "common era" to me always implied that other dating systems were "not common". "Common" is very often a normative term, so "uncommon" is strange, abnormal, not right. Yet these PCers embrace it so damn much.

I could be wrong, but in my experience it had been uptight, left-liberal Christians who go around saying "BCE" and "Happy Holidays".

[Slovo]

Spartan, I disagee. On the contrary, I think it's being relaxed about oppressive social power relationships that exist between groups of people, between men and women, between white people and black people, etc. which is more likely to alienate people. 'Political correctness' seems to be a term applied to a disapproval of discrimination, by people who don't want to admit that they're doing anything wrong. Using sexist, racist, homophobic terminology is far more likely to alienate social minorities from the left. Us leftists should be more concerned with fighting against discriminatory culture, which includes language, than we should be concerned about apologising for those in socially dominant groups who think that it's okay to reinforce such discrimination.

[Slovo]

pusher robot:- Nobody has ever cared about the word 'history'. What a ridiculous strawman.

[pusher robot]

pusher robot:- Nobody has ever cared about the word 'history'. What a ridiculous strawman.

*Sigh*

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1144237&postcount=7

Sometimes it's so easy, I'm ashamed of myself.

[Bud Struggle]

Besides "history" come froms the Greek word hysteria which means uterus--so history is all about women anyway. :lol:

(It's a [bad] joke--so skip the posts about how I don't know my etymology.:))

[Demogorgon]

Fine, whatever your reasons for posting that thread be what they may, I think it's unreasonable to argue that there isn't a problem with people either being overly sensitive, or worse, faking offense in order to gain political power.
I know all about idiots who behave that way. Hell it is rampant here. I got kicked from the CC because a bunch of bullies with inflated egos and a sincere dislike of people standing up to them, pretended that I was a sexist and that I was driving women away from the board because I oppose the board's policy on abortion. I am in no doubt that the behaviour you describe is real.

On the other hand it cuts both ways. You get the tabloid rags here who rant endlessly about "political correctness" framing it so that anything other than very right-wing views are "politically correct". The political climate is such that an accusation of being politically correct can sink an argument. It isn't the case so much in Scotland where people are generally quite left wing (though hardly politically correct) but down in England it is hard to argue for any rights for immigrants at all without being lambasted for being "politically correct".

[Qwerty Dvorak]

*Sigh*

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1144237&postcount=7

Sometimes it's so easy, I'm ashamed of myself.
That post doesn't show anything about anyone caring about the word. Try again.

[pusher robot]

That post doesn't show anything about anyone caring about the word. Try again.

It shows that at least one member of this board - a moderator, no less - thought that it would be a good idea to replace "history" with "herstory." If he didn't care, then why did he do it? Was he being satirical?

[RedAnarchist]

It shows that at least one member of this board - a moderator, no less - thought that it would be a good idea to replace "history" with "herstory." If he didn't care, then why did he do it? Was he being satirical?

He could have done it years ago, doesn't mean that he would do today. A few years ago, I held beliefs that I don't now, and I bet you that is the same for most people.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It shows that at least one member of this board - a moderator, no less - thought that it would be a good idea to replace "history" with "herstory." If he didn't care, then why did he do it? Was he being satirical?
You call yourself a Marxist of the Groucho tendency in your sig. That doesn't mean you are actually a Groucho-Marxist or that you believe that Groucho Marx had any kind of serious political theory.

[pusher robot]

You call yourself a Marxist of the Groucho tendency in your sig. That doesn't mean you are actually a Groucho-Marxist or that you believe that Groucho Marx had any kind of serious political theory.

True, but that is pretty obviously a joke. Since there are other posts with him using that word in a non-joking, non-satirical context, I don't think it was a joke.

But fine, I am willing to concede for the sake of moving forward that nobody anywhere has ever taken issue with the word "history." Now, do you care to address anything of substance from my post or are you just going to continue to irrelevantly pick nits?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

True, but that is pretty obviously a joke. Since there are other posts with him using that word in a non-joking, non-satirical context, I don't think it was a joke.

But fine, I am willing to concede for the sake of moving forward that nobody anywhere has ever taken issue with the word "history." Now, do you care to address anything of substance from my post or are you just going to continue to irrelevantly pick nits?
You made an argument, it was revealed to be a strawman, you claimed it was not a strawman, I showed that it was a strawman. So it is you who is in want of a valid point.

That, and I don't really disagree with many of your posts on this topic. Censorship is a dangerous practice, that goes without saying (but trust you to go ahead and say it anyway). It is not an act that should be committed lightly. I'm sure mistakes are made, moreso in the US than in saner countries. But I maintain that the situation is blown vastly out of proportion as per my previous post in this thread, I'm not sure if you read it.

[Bud Struggle]

He could have done it years ago, doesn't mean that he would do today. A few years ago, I held beliefs that I don't now, and I bet you that is the same for most people.

And that's EXACTLY how people over thirty end up being Capitalists. Good point. :)


You call yourself a Marxist of the Groucho tendency in your sig. That doesn't mean you are actually a Groucho-Marxist or that you believe that Groucho Marx had any kind of serious political theory.

Groucho has EXACTLY as much chance as any other "Marx" of his political theories becomming a reality. :)

[communard resolution]

And that's EXACTLY how people over thirty end up being Capitalists. Good point. :)

Naah, I think that's a cliche. But say Tom, you mentioned in another thread that you would favour a new, modern model of Communism - "communism without Marx", or something along those lines. I would be genuinely interested to hear if you have any more specific thoughts on that. Maybe a rough outline of your new and improved model would do.

[Bud Struggle]

Naah, I think that's a cliche. But say Tom, you mentioned in another thread that you would favour a new, modern model of Communism - "communism without Marx", or something along those lines. I would be genuinely interested to hear if you have any more specific thoughts on that. Maybe a rough outline of your new and improved model would do.

Thanks, I had been talking that up for a while--how I've reorganized my chemical factory along Soviet lines.

I got a bunch of hate mail from RevLefters saying I should mind my own Capitalistic business and leave the Revolution to them. I've decided to stop the shout outs for now. My long term plan is more ownership of the work by employees and more ownership of the profit by them also. (As the workers decided) any increased profits go 1/2 to actual pay increase, 1/4 into scholarships distributed by the workers, and 1/4 to go to anything the workers decide. My factory has five departments--each has a council elected by them to guide and decide the best course of action in any circumstance. Each council elects a representitive to a supreme soviet to decide the best course of action for the entire factory.

Managers assign work schedules--they don't boss or "manage" beyond telling the workers what they need to do. (That may change, too.)

There's been some MAJOR issues, but last time I brought those up--help from RevLeft was not proffered.

Do you want me to continue?

[communard resolution]

My long term plan is more ownership of the work by employees and more ownership of the profit by them also. (As the workers decided) any increased profits go 1/2 to actual pay increase, 1/4 into scholarships distributed by the workers, and 1/4 to go to anything the workers decide. My factory has five departments--each has a council elected by them to guide and decide the best course of action in any circumstance. Each council elects a representitive to a supreme soviet to decide the best course of action for the entire factory.I hate to say it, but a lot of what you suggest sounds just like Titoism: workers self-management, representatives elected by workers, profit sharing [EDIT: and flexibility rather than centralised long-term planning. If something doesn't work - change it]. From what I heard, workers in Yugoslavia were free to take their share of the profits home at the end of each month, or alternatively contribute it to the company. Of course, everybody just took it home. :rolleyes:

The fact that there is still competition between factories is obviously an enormous deviation from Marxism. What I think anti-revisionists never take into account, though, is the workers' actual subjective experience - all they worry about is to what extent a system is in line with Marxist-Leninist theory.

And based on my humble research... well, actually not so humble as I spoke to a lot of people who remember the Tito days, none of them could think of anything to complain about. I wonder how workers who lived in an 'anti-revisionist' socialist country such as Albania felt about their system, but I expect their opinions wouldn't be too favourable.


Do you want me to continue?Yes, it's quite interesting.

[Bud Struggle]

I hate to say it, but a lot of what you suggest sounds just like Titoism: workers self-management, representatives elected by workers, profit sharing [EDIT: and flexibility rather than centralised long-term planning. If something doesn't work - change it]. From what I heard, workers in Yugoslavia were free to take their share of the profits home at the end of each month, or alternatively contribute it to the company. Of course, everybody just took it home. :rolleyes:

First I ever herad of Tito around here.


The fact that there is still competition between factories is obviously an enormous deviation from Marxism. "
It's the good life, full of fun, seems to be the ideal,
Yes, the good life, lets you hide all the sadness you feel,"


What I think anti-revisionists never take into account, though, is the workers' actual subjective experience - all they worry about is to what extent a system is in line with Marxist-Leninist theory. Nobody here cares about workers--it's the Party Line. ZZZall. RevLefters don't care any mor about "workers" than Warren Buffett. That's been make abundantly clear to me.


And based on my humble research... well, actually not so humble as I spoke to a lot of people who remember the Tito days, none of them could think of anything to complain about. What a cherry to top off this post. Such expositions of Soviet knowledge usually end off with long dissertations about what a piece of crap I am!


Yes, it's quite interesting.

Indeed it is. I am no Commie, but I am trying my best to be fair in a vastly unequal world.

Thanks for your support.:):):):):)

Tom

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

post deleted.

Political Correctness is stupid. People should be free to say what they want. If something offensive is said, then don't listen to them.

Communism is found disgusting by many more people than actual communists.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Wrong-o there, bub. The student who gets a tenured professor suspended for using the word "niggardly" is not harmless. The woman who gets her male co-workers fired because she overhears them relating a sexual joke from "Seinfeld" is not harmless. Being threatened with termination for reading a book about the history of the of the KKK is not harmless. Being hauled before a human rights commission for publishing a bestselling book is not harmless. Being publicly libeled as a racist is not harmless. Trying to change the language to purge such non-sexisms as "woman" and "history" is not harmless either.



Some say we're re-writing history. I say we're improving history.

Not really the same, but kind of.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is my opinion that political correctness is turning more and more people to far-right politics and mindsets.

I see it on forums I go on which are infested with people with far-right views. What I see from them is not racism or sexism for it's own sake, but hatred of a society that has seemingly gone insane when it comes to stuff like this.

Indeed making things like not openly talking about politically incorrect issues such as race and gender and people's roles in society unpopular has the opposite effect and makes people want to embrace these things as they are the opposite ideals of what they hate so much; political correctness.

What about that little-known politically correct position that, according to TomK and Baconator, "there is no such thing as class"?

[Bud Struggle]

What about that little-known politically correct position that, according to TomK and Baconator, "there is no such thing as class"?

Well, to be honest, the idea hasn't gotten into the politically correct pantheon of ideas yet, but we're working on it. I must I hadn't thought of it, but it does seem "wrong" that we aren't all in the same class. I mean who wants to be called a freakin' PROLETARIAN??? It's insulting to poor people.

Now, there are two ways to solve that problem 1) we could start a Revolution and make everyone equal, but there's no assurance American Idol would still be on TV in the aftermath or that the National Enquirer would have anything to publish--so maybe that isn't such a good idea.

Or 2) we just SAY we are all in the same class and leave it at that.

I'm for plan #2! :lol:

[RGacky3]

I mean who wants to be called a freakin' PROLETARIAN??? It's insulting to poor people.


Change the word Proletarian to working, is it still insulting? I hope not.


Or 2) we just SAY we are all in the same class and leave it at that.

We can also say that no one starves in the world and that the guns in africa shoot gummy bears to children, we can also just SAY that sick people don't exist and don't need medical attention.

[mikelepore]

One thing that is causing harm by driving many members of the working class toward the ultraconservative direction is the "liberal" practice of naming organizations after all demographic groups except for white people. There are the National Association of Black Journalists, The African American Environmentalist Association, the National Association of Hispanic Nurses, the Organization of Chinese American Women, the Mexican American Physicians Association, the Organization of Black Airline Pilots, the Society of Mexican American Scientists and Engineers, the Association of Black Cardiologists, etc. There is only one group in the human population for which it is considered bad taste and morally unacceptable to name any club or organization after, and that is white people. If anyone were to establish the a group called the organization of white anything, they would be immediately accused by others of being racists. This inconsistency, this double-standard, is the leading factor that perpetuates racism and bigotry at this time. It causes many white people to feel that whites are now the major victims of institutional racism. Even after most conservatives have finally reached the point of considering everyone to be solely a human being to be judged by their character, the more "liberal" people continue to insist that everyone must be classified and labeled by color, language, or national origin. This is preventing the working class from attaining class consciousness and uniting, and since I am a Marxist this impedance to unity concerns me very much.

[Plagueround]

I mean who wants to be called a freakin' PROLETARIAN??? It's insulting to poor people.


Now that I can agree with. I've been in a quotation mood today, so I'll let Lord Halifax comment on that one:

"A man that should call everything by its right name would hardly pass the streets without being knocked down as a common enemy."
- Lord Halifax

[Conquer or Die]

Wrong-o there, bub. The student who gets a tenured professor suspended for using the word "niggardly" is not harmless. The woman who gets her male co-workers fired because she overhears them relating a sexual joke from "Seinfeld" is not harmless. Being threatened with termination for reading a book about the history of the of the KKK is not harmless. Being hauled before a human rights commission for publishing a bestselling book is not harmless. Being publicly libeled as a racist is not harmless. Trying to change the language to purge such non-sexisms as "woman" and "history" is not harmless either.

Citing a few anecdotal examples of people vying for power (opposed to being offended) is nothing against the massive damnations against political correctness. And yours is a very well constructed straw men that bloviators of the right (and left!) use to hammer home "controversial" points without being touched. "I know it's not politically correct....." is meant to shield one from potential criticism, becoming the very thing it seeks to destroy.

Like others have said; there are plenty of important people dismayed at gays, lack of religiousness, lack of manliness, islamofascists, welfare babies, and evils in the minority communities. There is not a single important figure who has said "Fuck the troops."

Who is more damaging to free speech and dialogue?


It's these kinds of hysterical over-reactions that lead people to conclude that the issue isn't really offense; otherwise, wouldn't a sincere apology be enough? Rather, the real purpose seems to be simple power: get your enemy fired, harass them with quasi-judicial proceedings, bankrupt them in court, or destroy their reputation, and otherwise use the pretext of your offense to get publicity for yourself and destroy other people's lives.

This has nothing to do with people being offended. It's okay to be offended at something. To use it for personal gain is another story, and it has nothing to do with "offense" as you mentioned. It is also nowhere near to any scale to be worried about.