Good description of Political Correctness

[DoomYoshi]

What is political correctness? As I see it, it is a predictable feature of the life cycle of modern revolutions, beginning with the French Revolution of 1789, which was inspired by the American Revolution of the prior decade but turned far more violent. A first generation of daring rebels overthrows a fossilized establishment and leaves the landscape littered with ruins. In the post-revolutionary era, the rebels begin to fight among themselves, which may lead to persecutions and assassinations. The victorious survivor then rules like the tyrants who were toppled in the first place. This is the phase of political correctness — when the vitality of the founding revolution is gone and when revolutionary principles have become merely slogans, verbal formulas enforced by apparatchiks, that is, party functionaries or administrators who kill great ideas by institutionalizing them.

From this article:
http://thesmartset.com/free-speech-the-modern-campus/

[thegreekdog]

“They were and are children of privilege... the privilege taught, learned, and imbibed, in a "liberal arts education" is the privilege to indict. These children have, in the main, never worked, learned to obey, command, construct, amend, or complete - to actually contribute to the society. They have learned to be shrill, and that their indictment, on the economy, on sex, on race, on the environment, though based on no experience other than hearsay, must trump any discourse, let alone opposition. It occurred to me that I had seen this behavior elsewhere, where it was called developmental difficulty.”

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I was thinking about something similar and considered starting a thread. Mostly about the current vogue of crying about something "offensive." There's this good Bill Burr bit where he highlights the absurdity of it all. It reminds me of a Carlin bit.



-TG

[Symmetry]

I've always thought that the "it's political correctness gone mad" line of thinking was pretty lazy. It's a cop out for those who want to dismiss groups of people out of hand, under a dodgy argument for free speech.

It has to be one of the biggest clichés of our time.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I've always thought that the "it's political correctness gone mad" line of thinking was pretty lazy. It's a cop out for those who want to dismiss groups of people out of hand, under a dodgy argument for free speech.

It has to be one of the biggest clichés of our time.

Common etiquette is not the same as op's topic, and it seems you confuse the two.

Besides, who says one can't "dismiss groups of people out of hand?"

-TG

[Symmetry]

I've always thought that the "it's political correctness gone mad" line of thinking was pretty lazy. It's a cop out for those who want to dismiss groups of people out of hand, under a dodgy argument for free speech.

It has to be one of the biggest clichés of our time.

Common etiquette is not the same as op's topic, and it seems you confuse the two.

Besides, who says one can't "dismiss groups of people out of hand?"

-TG

Clearly people can dismiss people out of hand, so I can only echo your question- who says one can't? I suspect you were being lazily facetious. It's a bad habit TG!

Now, a more interesting question, and one that you ironically dismiss out of hand, is should there be a kind of common ettiquette in discourse and debate. I would say yes, there should be agreed terms of discourse, a kind of political correctness.

I think political correctness is largely about including people, and opponents of political correctness are largely about excluding, marginalising, and dismissing people. A genaralisation, but largely true, in my experience.

[mrswdk]

The uprising at Berkeley climaxed in Savio’s fiery speech from the steps of Sproul Hall, where he denounced the university administration. Of the 4000 protestors in Sproul Plaza, 800 were arrested. That demonstration embodied the essence of 1960s activism: it challenged, rebuked, and curtailed authority in the pursuit of freedom and equality; it did not demand, as happens too often today, that authority be expanded to create special protections for groups reductively defined as weak or vulnerable or to create buffers to spare sensitive young feelings from offense. The progressive 1960s, predicated on assertive individualism and the liberation of natural energy from social controls, wanted less surveillance and paternalism, not more. more.

This is nonsense. The 1960s activism discussed in this article addressed marginalization caused by the government - namely the segregation of black Americans, censorship of sexual expression and so forth. The present day activism alluded to in the article addresses marginalization caused by societal forces - homophobia, racism, misogyny and so on. Present day activists who focus on issues of discourse call for greater regulation because greater regulation is the solution to their particular struggle.

All this article really proves is how lame-o the thought process of stagnant, washed up old men like OP really is. 'Back when I was your age I was sticking it to The Man (the government), you young pussy?' He's about two paragraphs away from breaking into a rant about how much harder life was during 'the war'. It's not 1967 any more, dude. Time to move on.

[thegreekdog]

I've always thought that the "it's political correctness gone mad" line of thinking was pretty lazy. It's a cop out for those who want to dismiss groups of people out of hand, under a dodgy argument for free speech.

It has to be one of the biggest clichés of our time.

I've always thought political correctness is pretty lazy. Political correctness itself is essentially a cop-out because there person can think of no other viable, intelligent counterargument (if there even should be a counterargument). There's a quote about this that I love, but unfortunately can't find.

[mrswdk]

I've always thought that the "it's political correctness gone mad" line of thinking was pretty lazy. It's a cop out for those who want to dismiss groups of people out of hand, under a dodgy argument for free speech.

It has to be one of the biggest clichés of our time.

I've always thought political correctness is pretty lazy. Political correctness itself is essentially a cop-out because there person can think of no other viable, intelligent counterargument (if there even should be a counterargument). There's a quote about this that I love, but unfortunately can't find.

I don't know about the States but in the UK the only people who say 'political correctness' are the people complaining about the alleged tyranny of no longer being allowed to say words that are now deemed offensive or insensitive. I don't think I've ever heard someone complain about use of a particular word and say 'that's not politically correct'.

[thegreekdog]

I've always thought that the "it's political correctness gone mad" line of thinking was pretty lazy. It's a cop out for those who want to dismiss groups of people out of hand, under a dodgy argument for free speech.

It has to be one of the biggest clichés of our time.

I've always thought political correctness is pretty lazy. Political correctness itself is essentially a cop-out because there person can think of no other viable, intelligent counterargument (if there even should be a counterargument). There's a quote about this that I love, but unfortunately can't find.

I don't know about the States but in the UK the only people who say 'political correctness' are the people complaining about the alleged tyranny of no longer being allowed to say words that are now deemed offensive or insensitive. I don't think I've ever heard someone complain about use of a particular word and say 'that's not politically correct'.

Perhaps I'm not really referring to political correctness... more like this kind of thing:

Person 1: I don't think affirmative action works because of [fact] and [fact] and [fact].
Person 2: You're racist.

[mrswdk]

Yeah, that is annoying.

It's also kind of ironic for someone who likes to think of themselves as enlightened to simply parrot words such as 'racist' or 'sexist' instead of presenting any sort of reasoned justification for their views.

[hotfire]

I've always thought that the "it's political correctness gone mad" line of thinking was pretty lazy. It's a cop out for those who want to dismiss groups of people out of hand, under a dodgy argument for free speech.

It has to be one of the biggest clichés of our time.

I've always thought political correctness is pretty lazy. Political correctness itself is essentially a cop-out because there person can think of no other viable, intelligent counterargument (if there even should be a counterargument). There's a quote about this that I love, but unfortunately can't find.

I don't know about the States but in the UK the only people who say 'political correctness' are the people complaining about the alleged tyranny of no longer being allowed to say words that are now deemed offensive or insensitive. I don't think I've ever heard someone complain about use of a particular word and say 'that's not politically correct'.

Perhaps I'm not really referring to political correctness... more like this kind of thing:

Person 1: I don't think affirmative action works because of [fact] and [fact] and [fact].
Person 2: You're racist.

Yes, because conservatives in America often quote [facts] and [facts] and [facts]. Or NOT.

[mrswdk]

inb4 republicans vs democrats

[thegreekdog]

I've always thought that the "it's political correctness gone mad" line of thinking was pretty lazy. It's a cop out for those who want to dismiss groups of people out of hand, under a dodgy argument for free speech.

It has to be one of the biggest clichés of our time.

I've always thought political correctness is pretty lazy. Political correctness itself is essentially a cop-out because there person can think of no other viable, intelligent counterargument (if there even should be a counterargument). There's a quote about this that I love, but unfortunately can't find.

I don't know about the States but in the UK the only people who say 'political correctness' are the people complaining about the alleged tyranny of no longer being allowed to say words that are now deemed offensive or insensitive. I don't think I've ever heard someone complain about use of a particular word and say 'that's not politically correct'.

Perhaps I'm not really referring to political correctness... more like this kind of thing:

Person 1: I don't think affirmative action works because of [fact] and [fact] and [fact].
Person 2: You're racist.

Yes, because conservatives in America often quote [facts] and [facts] and [facts]. Or NOT.

Thanks providing an excellent example of exactly what I'm talking about!

[DoomYoshi]

The uprising at Berkeley climaxed in Savio’s fiery speech from the steps of Sproul Hall, where he denounced the university administration. Of the 4000 protestors in Sproul Plaza, 800 were arrested. That demonstration embodied the essence of 1960s activism: it challenged, rebuked, and curtailed authority in the pursuit of freedom and equality; it did not demand, as happens too often today, that authority be expanded to create special protections for groups reductively defined as weak or vulnerable or to create buffers to spare sensitive young feelings from offense. The progressive 1960s, predicated on assertive individualism and the liberation of natural energy from social controls, wanted less surveillance and paternalism, not more. more.

This is nonsense. The 1960s activism discussed in this article addressed marginalization caused by the government - namely the segregation of black Americans, censorship of sexual expression and so forth. The present day activism alluded to in the article addresses marginalization caused by societal forces - homophobia, racism, misogyny and so on. Present day activists who focus on issues of discourse call for greater regulation because greater regulation is the solution to their particular struggle.

All this article really proves is how lame-o the thought process of stagnant, washed up old men like OP really is. 'Back when I was your age I was sticking it to The Man (the government), you young pussy?' He's about two paragraphs away from breaking into a rant about how much harder life was during 'the war'. It's not 1967 any more, dude. Time to move on.

Segregating black americans legally is almost identical to minority quotas, no matter how much ad hom you bring.

[DoomYoshi]

Here is a current news case of PC gone mad:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/11/us-defies-myanmar-government-rohingya-muslims
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/myanmar-usa-05102016154200.html

[warmonger1981]

PC is nothing more than a person trying to corner the market on language. Then social movements start. This then leads to the First Amendment being restricted. Once that goes then it all goes down. Bing Bang Boom. 10 times in the pooper.

[Symmetry]

I've always thought that the "it's political correctness gone mad" line of thinking was pretty lazy. It's a cop out for those who want to dismiss groups of people out of hand, under a dodgy argument for free speech.

It has to be one of the biggest clichés of our time.

I've always thought political correctness is pretty lazy. Political correctness itself is essentially a cop-out because there person can think of no other viable, intelligent counterargument (if there even should be a counterargument). There's a quote about this that I love, but unfortunately can't find.

It certainly can be used that way, but I think the benefits of opening up debate to minority groups outweigh the downside of some people being idiots.

I see it as a net positive, on balance.

I see that in some of your other replies, you accept that you might not have been talking about political correctness in your reply above though.

I hope I have at least clarified my position.

[Symmetry]

PC is nothing more than a person trying to corner the market on language. Then social movements start. This then leads to the First Amendment being restricted. Once that goes then it all goes down. Bing Bang Boom. 10 times in the pooper.

I see it as a societal thing- a pressure from society describing what is or is not acceptable in terms of the body politics discourse. It's a much more ground roots pressure than a top-down one, as you point out- social movements.

It helps open a democracy to other voices. People can still be racist, homophobic, bigoted, or whatever, so I see few free speech issues. The issue is more- should bigots be immune from social criticism?

[hotfire]

I've always thought that the "it's political correctness gone mad" line of thinking was pretty lazy. It's a cop out for those who want to dismiss groups of people out of hand, under a dodgy argument for free speech.

It has to be one of the biggest clichés of our time.

I've always thought political correctness is pretty lazy. Political correctness itself is essentially a cop-out because there person can think of no other viable, intelligent counterargument (if there even should be a counterargument). There's a quote about this that I love, but unfortunately can't find.

I don't know about the States but in the UK the only people who say 'political correctness' are the people complaining about the alleged tyranny of no longer being allowed to say words that are now deemed offensive or insensitive. I don't think I've ever heard someone complain about use of a particular word and say 'that's not politically correct'.

Perhaps I'm not really referring to political correctness... more like this kind of thing:

Person 1: I don't think affirmative action works because of [fact] and [fact] and [fact].
Person 2: You're racist.

Yes, because conservatives in America often quote [facts] and [facts] and [facts]. Or NOT.

Thanks providing an excellent example of exactly what I'm talking about!

a [half-truth] or an [opinion]?

[Symmetry]

I don't know, affirmative action is often used as a cover for more pernicious dog whistle politics. I've seen some very good criticisms of it, and some very convincing arguments for it. I'd like to see more people target legacy preference policies in the US when they discuss favourable policies as a balance.

I tend to think that it's better targeted on economic lines, rather than racial lines, but that's just my take.

[thegreekdog]

a [half-truth] or an [opinion]?

A nothing... a whiny shrill... trumping any discourse.

[hotfire]

a [half-truth] or an [opinion]?

A nothing... a whiny shrill... trumping any discourse.

And thank you for proving my point with an [flat-out lie] rather than a [fact] and [fact] and [fact].

[thegreekdog]

a [half-truth] or an [opinion]?

A nothing... a whiny shrill... trumping any discourse.

And thank you for proving my point with an [flat-out lie] rather than a [fact] and [fact] and [fact].

I did not make a flat-out lie. I simply pointed out that instead of engaging in the discussion you said "Yes, because conservatives in American often quote [facts] and [facts] and [facts]. Or NOT." You made no argument, you simply posted what you probably thought was a witty rejoinder based upon your assumption that conservatives (which you've defined as people that don't like affirmative action, I'm assuming) often don't quote facts. The example I provided was to show that people often get away with "winning" arguments by offering nothing other than an attack on the person or whining at the unfairness of it all. You then immediately provided another example.

If you would like to engage in a discussion of the benefits or lack thereof of affirmative action, I'm happy to do so. But this is not the thread for it. This thread is for discussing political correctness and/or the appropriateness of arguments lacking any basis in intelligent discourse. An argument lacking any basis in intelligent discourse is something like the folllowing:

Yes, because conservatives in America often quote [facts] and [facts] and [facts]. Or NOT.

[hotfire]

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that this forum was reserved for seriousness now. My mistake and I apologize sincerely. And you won't be hearing much from me as I am rarely serious.