Where Political Correctness Went Wrong

Post Reply New Topic

It would take enough of the Jonathan Haidt type of centrist liberals being able to get the left out of their corner to articulate what needs to happen into practical ideas that can be implemented in the real world. That takes a measure of realism and self-criticism because the people involved have to be dedicated to seeing the system we have change slowly into something better and be willing to work toward laying down groundwork that aids that process.

For the de-tribalizing, people have to actually want to know what those at the opposite end of the isle believe, give them credit where their understandings actually hold true, and criticize constructively where they're missing the bigger picture. When people are willing to do that the us-and-them gap diminishes significantly.


I think people need to get their faith back that if a cause is important enough and they keep marshaling the facts and evidence for why it works better than what we have now that the idea will eventually break through. A good example - HUGE social resistance to the legalization of marijuana, it's still a schedule I drug at the federal level (I think largely because of international treaties and obligations), yet the science is breaching the rumors that it's this terrible destroyer of people and really questioning whether there's any evidence that it's worse than alcohol. Social stigmas are tough to break down but the facts have a way of bringing enough people together to where science trumps superstition.

Similarly with UBI the caliber of voices who've been coming out in favor of that keep growing. Currently the argument is that automation will squash enough employment (ie. the mechanization of pretty much any repetitive tasks with software) that we'll really be in a place soon where the jobs left over will be well beyond the capacities of most people to succeed at. At that point the choice is really social order or social unrest; ie. the later happens almost defacto if unemployment starts climbing up well over 20% and you have enough young men with nothing to lose. I also think Mark Blyth's phrase on this - ie. that the Hampton's aren't a defensible position - goes with a certain self-awareness that the rich have, ie. that if they want to have the lifestyle they have now concessions have to be made, otherwise it's lifestyles of South Africa's rich and famous.

That's where I think the left misses the mark - ie. they need to be able to rephrase the noise into heft behind reasoned and practical solutions; that is at least those who could stand the system as it is now getting better. For those who vow that the current system needs to be destroyed and no dialog with the enemy until that succeeds - there really isn't much hope. Trying to brow-beat a group into submission sets the stage for the society they're in to go so rancid that it won't be worth much by the time their done - even if they succeed the construction of so many wedge groups just means that they'll turn on each other. It's part of why I also don't think it's that far out there that some people suggest that Leninism/Stalinism tends to be the pot of gold that's at the end of that particular rainbow - when things continue to not work and the last big boogeyman has been destroyed it's a perpetual march to find the new 'wreckers'.

No, no and no again!

That's not how reasonable discourse works. You don't get to define something as X then proclaim your definition to be above reproach or criticism.

The aim of political correctness is most certainly not "to spread empathy, justice and fairness". It is a tool, not a being with agency. It was conceived out of a desire to use herd psychology to control the masses, not out of peace and love and fluffy idealism.

@techstep

That last post was another candidate for a like button. I'd add that tribalism is an inevitable consequence of human nature. Ideologies strive to dominate and eradicate other ideologies, and have largely supplanted 'tribes' in the sphere of political discourse. It would take a monumental paradigm shift (or innumerable smaller ones) to achieve the kind of 'oneness" required for globalism - a primary goal of the "Progressive Left" and one of the main reasons they employ PC - to be a possibility. Whips aren't going to cut it.



For that to happen, the conversation needs to be dragged out of the clutches of the extreme elements of all parties, and thought-terminating/controlling language and policies need to be rejected. Those of us without a fiercely protected First Amendment are on a path to extreme civil unrest as the nebulous term "hate speech" is applied to an increasingly broad platform and punished using force of law.

Hmm, I was thinking it was more of a Marxist thing but it's not impossible I suppose that neo-cons/neo-libs could be gambling with it as well. The whole globalist movement though seems tone deaf, particularly in relationship to any notion of one-world economic system and government not having so many heads of state screaming mercy, not over the power but sheer incompetence, that it would unravel itself faster than the EU. It's part of what Mark Blyth was mentioning in his Global Trumpism - ie. everyone watching things get worse and worse for them financially while the same neo-cons/neo-libs keep telling them 'vote for me - I'll make it better' and aside from rotating arsehats nothing really seems to change, hence rising populism in Europe and the US.

Modern democracy in a nutshell. Tribalism and maintaining the status quo form the driving force behind the 'two-party system'.

Blyth isn't saying anything new - where we're currently at has been predicted by scholars, writers and drunken philosophers in bars across the land. Where he and I differ is in our preferred outcomes and short-to-mid term goals. The world isn't psychologically prepared for true globalism, but I do see it as an eventual necessity for long-term survival of our species.

Trump was inevitable, as was 'Brexit', to anyone who was willing to pay attention to the world around them. We latched onto a winner during the Age of Enlightenment when we built the foundations of Western liberalism. It's the rejection of those values - including policing of speech - more than the stagnation of the economy which is creating the backlash.

Love him, hate him or simply accept him as extant, Trump is a figurehead for liberty vs authority. He's the Punk Rock President in an era of dissatisfaction, and his disregard for Political Correctness was a huge factor in his election.

Trump also has a corresponding disregard for basic rights---such as the Freedom of the Press.

I hate "political correctness"--with a passion.

That's no excuse for electing the Second Coming of Bozo as President, though.

Freedom of the press isn't a right, it's a privilege. It literally means the right for anyone to publish their ideas and opinions without being censored by governments. Trump wanted to weaken libel laws, not prevent people from publishing libellous remarks.

In short, that's not an example of Trump having disregard for "basic rights".

He wants to influence what is published, to more of an extent than other recent Presidents.

Anything he disagrees with he calls "Fake News."

Not even Thomas Jefferson would dare call the libelous scum who tried to screw with his reputation "Fake Newsmen."

If there was no concept of "freedom of the press," there would be no United States, basically

Yes.....this is from a sort of nationalistic US perspective:

I'm worried that Trump will sully our reputation around the world even further than it's sullied already.

And that, most importantly, our status as a unique nation is threatened, where at least we had ideals pertaining to allowing the "huddled masses" to lead a new life away from the oppression of the "old country." He's going to make the US just one more "corporate entity" in a sea of "corporate entities."

None of which is against the law, an abridgement of any rights or especially immoral.



You have that back-to-front. The amount of freedom your press enjoys is a result of your constitution. Again, what Trump wanted was a weakened libel law, which is within his rights and outside his power to enforce.



Reputation with whom? Trump likely has as many supporters and detractors as any previous President, both within and without. The people making the US look bad from an outside perspective are the DMC and its supporters for their failure to to accept the result of the election and doing everything in their power to manufacture a coup.

All the surface shenanigans, the circus show in the press, is pretty much par for the course.

Trump isn't the problem, but he could be part of a cure if you lot would stop drawing battle lines.

We have a dozen threads about DJT.

I like the conception of politeness in the video, but it does not match the reality of politeness as I learned it. Politeness consisted only of concealing bigoted speech from the objects thereof, while promoting in-group out-group beliefs privately. I think PC has helped people like me get more support for our race-traitordom. If I dispute a bigoted characterization as untrue and prejudicial, even without the presence of a member of that group, that's PC, and not politeness as I learned it. By the rules of politeness, I'm rude for starting a conflict.

You might want to talk to some more not-Americans before you go pointing the finger at anyone but the US far-right for the damage to the US's reputation. Dubya hurt America's reputation abroad, then the triggered white supremacist snowflakes spent Obama's two terms piling more hurt on, and now finally the election of Donald Trump is the punchline to the joke that America's reputation abroad has become.

Of course if one isn't willing to identify the source of the problem one can't possibly begin to consider how to address the problem.

For the last motherfucking time: THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT HOW PEOPLE DEFINE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!

I'm not saying the subject is off limits, just off topic. For f**k's sake...





You are not totally wrong. HOWEVER, you and others in this thread are conflating goals with methods and not really thinking things out...


SJWs, me included, absolutely do want to effect mass mind control!! ! That is exactly what we want to do!

-->THIS IS THE GODDAMN POINT OF THE THREAD!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!<--

What you're not really grasping is why...

This is conflict theory in action.

As a professional SJW my goal is to mind control rude, greedy as*holes so that I can make them help and give resources to my clients (homeless people, poor people needing medical care, Veterans with PTSD, people with physical disabilities, etc.).

This means I need to make those greedy s**ts feel empathy for my clients and make them want to treat my clients in a fair and just way! So yes, we evil SJWs are actually promoting Empathy, Justice, and Fairness (aimed at our clients)!

The problem is, our current methods are not working as evidenced the general hostility, opposition and contempt here, and else where, toward SJWs and all things PC.

So, its time for a change.

SJWs need to find new tactics (such as the one described in the video) to trick you rotten bastards into acting like decent, moral humans again, for a while at least...



Tricky, aren't we?

Once again, you're not really answering the question. You are pointing out what might well be the problems and solutions here, but you aren't telling me how you would actually convince people to change and adopt your ideas.

Simply making reasonable arguments won't work (as evidenced by reality).

I'd point back to this bit in the video:


One of the reasons people despise PC so much is because it wants to police people's thoughts.

Sure, ultimately we want to change people's attitudes/thoughts as well, but this needs to be addressed with a lot more sensitivity and tact. You cannot change hearts and minds with lectures and finger wagging.

That said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with calling out people who are being overtly racist and/or insensitive. What you don't want to do is treat someone acting this way as if they're Hitler or the grand dooda of the KKK. The other reason people hate PC folks is because of the gross overreactions some are prone to...

Take Bill Maher as an example. What he said was complete wrong and should not be tolerated, but Maher isn't some racist monster. He's just sort of a clueless douche, who mostly means well on issues of race.

There were/are a lot of people on the PC left who wanted to see him gone, but I think what actually happened was about right. He apologized, admitted his mistake, got chewed on by a few guests, and most have moved on.

That would have to be different from issue to issue. I gave an example of science changing the minds of legislators on marijuana, clearly not everything quite fits that situation. I think just having the politics stay on message, not only on what's the rational choice but why, and rallying an idea like it's time has properly come helps. If I'm still being uselessly vague give me an example perhaps.


At the same time I can't think of any alternatives that aren't straight-away worse.