That's a great post, thank you. Rule of thumb: the extreme left will call you a prick and interrupt your shows, the extreme right will do the same then threaten to rape you and kill your family.

I hope you don't expect too much from me, I agree that you'll hear more about political correctness being bad than actual political correctness. Nobody says they're in favour of political correctness because the term is necessarily denigrating. The idea behind political correctness is that you're omitting information or condemning things on the basis that they might offend people. I just googled some extreme examples rather than talk forever about my own experiences.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/10-examples-ridiculous-political-correctness-150911412.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADRy0h6Qxr9C2OfBHQhHlDCEfatuMLnOWzRC8EojdEqxpvnBW8Ahy1UXTP1Sq1-YWXLzJmSYOBvn8QLEiaPBmvxgceMRs1MoI5al7QjOFjRlklpFhdV8FoUXdLPx4nE80CLCqKoi-WuSvlSN-Aunhq5T46O-aGRAJ3SFjHyVHuL4
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoliticalCorrectnessgoneMad


I've had this chat with Fooloso in other forums and it's important to realise that it occurs from both sides but only because people wrongly believe it doesn't. Acting as though the extreme left is benign is absolutely ridiculous, do you perhaps know nothing about history at all? Clearly, you haven't been paying attention to the present either.

I've had this chat with Fooloso in other forums and it's important to realise that it occurs from both sides but only because people wrongly believe it doesn't. Acting as though the extreme left is benign is absolutely ridiculous, do you perhaps know nothing about history at all? Clearly, you haven't been paying attention to the present either. — Judaka

Yes, I know nothing about history and pay no attention to the news. Discard everything I say.

Actually, I'll also point out that's an absurd characterisation of the extreme right as well. I will make a point to discard what you say in the future as you suggest, what a joke.

Actually, I'll also point out that's an absurd characterisation of the extreme right as well. — Judaka

That's ok, absurd caricatures satirise themselves.

If such a thing was your intent it was well veiled... I sadly don't think enough see your views as absurd and that encourages me to think you were serious. I no longer know if you were serious or not but if you weren't then I apologise, if you were then there's that's that.

I started to look at your clickbait, and then gave up. There is a level of fuckwittery to which I will not descend, and that is well below it.

If such a thing was your intent it was well veiled... I sadly don't think enough see your views as absurd and that encourages me to think you were serious. I no longer know if you were serious or not but if you weren't then I apologise, if you were then there's that's that. — Judaka

That's very nice of you, thank you. I figured when you brought in the history of the extreme left to the discussion on political correctness, you had in mind figures like Stalin and Mao and Trotsky or the Naxalites or whatever. I saw this as a red herring, as even the supposed left which is besties with political correctness isn't Stalinist or Maoist or Trotskyist and the last one's too busy painting towns red with police blood to care about whether we say black or brown. If you look at the supposed characteristics of people who love political correctness, you'll find they're white working-middle class liberal weenies.

However, when you actually go look at the contemporary extreme right, they're still the fucking Nazis and KKK they just use different words. Just like nigger became black, genocide of non-whites became ethnic replacement became white genocide - or more insidiously racist policy becomes states rights; bigoted policy is fine at the federal level, not tolerant policy though. They're still threatening sexual assault victims and feminists with rape and death, they're still beating the shit out of second generation immigrant neighbourhoods at rallies or hilariously meme-ing their cars into the crowd, or they're leading minor political parties in places or doing that and terrorism at the same time while infiltrating the police.

So yes, I was satirising myself because you made an absurd caricature of me. I am glad that you got it.

I got no idea what that comment is supposed to mean. Nobody is an advocate of political correctness and if you wanted a particular type of example you should have said as much, I didn't write the OP.


So you were being serious, you're a moron. If you came here telling me the extreme right are just "chaps who care about their ethnic identity" I would have lambasted you the same way I did when you came and talked about the modern extreme left like they're no big deal. So don't talk to me like I'm some kind of extreme right apologist because I point out you have an extremely imbalanced perspective.

Talking to you about the dangers the extreme left presents seems like a waste of my time. You tell me not that people who like political correctness are harmless (not that I'd agree) but that the literal extreme left is harmless. I assure you that the extreme right is not out there doing what the extreme right did in the 20th century but don't worry, I don't forgive them for that. That I don't forgive the extreme left is something you can be mad about, I'm sure it's entirely unreasonable to you but I don't care to argue about it.

So you were being serious, you're a moron. If you came here telling me the extreme right are just "chaps who care about their ethnic identity" I would have lambasted you the same way I did when you came and talked about the modern extreme left like they're no big deal. So don't talk to me like I'm some kind of extreme right apologist because I point out you have an extremely imbalanced perspective. — Judaka

Yeah no worries. It's a shame that you missed me expressing disapproval of a contemporary communist movement killing loads of people. I don't know how I could possibly have thought that communism and the extreme left are always harmless. I guess I know better now!

I'm talking about the modern extreme left, I never said that you said the extreme left was always harmless but pretty much the exact opposite. What's your stake in all this anyway?

What's your stake in all this anyway? — Judaka

My stake in it? Honestly, I think society was better in the times of ancient Sumeria. When people started suggesting that sexual pleasure was something to be had in private, they (or we as I like to think) started shouting out that political correctness had gone mad! Communal brides were, of course, natural and an excellent way to integrate migrant women into our communities. How couldn't the heathens see it, they were suppressing the norms of liberty that hold our very society together! While I would die for their right to speak their stupid reactionary opinions, I would never live in a world where they won. So I killed myself some time in 3900BC as a protest, but unfortunately I never got to see if it made any difference.

Re looking for an advocate, presumably you guys mean something other than someone saying "I'm in favor of political correctness," right?

Also, would you agree that there are cases where it's pretty widespread/mainstream to advocate people losing jobs, say, because of something they said on twitter, photos on Facebook, etc.?

Fooloso's post is about how political correctness occurs on both sides, your response was that the modern extreme left is benign.

You have no idea what I stand for or what I believe. You did tell me what I needed to know I suppose, I was justified in my actions towards you and I won't wait for this conversation to end to start disregarding what you say.

Perhaps this is surprising but I do have basic reading skills. @Fooloso4' excellent post, though it's more a series of interlinking references, makes the following points:

(1) Political correctness' power, at least in campus, is massively overstated. It is disproportionately written about, and in an exaggerated form, given the frequency and severity of its occurrence.
(1a) you can infer from this that all the talk about the left trying to destroy free speech on campuses is
noise. This links into point (2)
(2) Both the left and right utilise political correctness (as an aside, in the context of campus discussions, it should be called de-platforming). The left does it marginally more frequently, the right does it less but much more effectively.
(3) There is a historical component to the post, going back to the origins of the term 'political correctness' in leftist circles as, ironically, a mantra against dogmatism and sacred cows. The second stage of this historical component is that the right cottoned onto the left's use of the term, strategically (or stupidly) misinterpreted it to have its opposite meaning ('comrade, you must be politically correct!' as a command rather than the satirisation of a command), then used it to transform hysteria about the left into a new context of discussion. Political correctness as a term was strategically co-opted in media and politics by their journalists and researchers to be rebranded as a censorial scourge of a free society and its speech.

Flash forward to today, and we have alarm that campuses are dominated by Marxists saying that you will be fired if you say that women always have breasts and that right pundits despite being more effective at deplatforming are the aggregate victims of it. So despite that the right are more effective at it; partially due to their followings' threatening behaviours and partially due to left speakers not being part time internet trolls, they are the victims of a (becoming increasingly violent) left attempting to deplatform them. Just to be clear, I repeat, the right and centrists are considered the aggregate victims of deplatforming behaviour despite the left generally being much less effective at it - and the followings of right pundits do have a habit of sending threats to people who speak out against them publicly.

The narrative paints a situation of an authoritarian left censoring speech, despite the right being better at censoring speech and more violent when they do it. We should expect all parties involved in political/ideological conflicts to use deplatforming, it's stupid not to try and shut your opponents up within the confines of the law - just the right has a little tiny eensy weensy habit of threatening to kill and rape people they disagree with, which, y'know, is a pretty big incentive to shut the fuck up.

Who benefits from this narrative of victimisation? What political agents have their influence minimised through it, and what political agents stand to gain the most from all this idiotic mental ping-pong?

I don't remember Fooloso as being a conspiracy theorist, he had appeared to me to be just saying that it existed on both sides when I previously read him using the same examples in the same topic. Perhaps he agrees with you that the modern extreme left is benign? Doesn't seem like he said that though and it wouldn't matter if he did.

I'm not sure what you think you're debating with me, when my only issue with you is that you think the modern extreme left is benign. Just seems like you're making even more assumptions about me, you want me so bad to be some right-winger who only hates the left because he's an unreasonable ass.

I think any real thinker worth something, doesn't consider themselves left or right but hasn't adopted any of those skewed ways of looking at the world. Interpretatively and politically, being their own person.

Anyway, I've already been tired of talking to you, even your way of approaching demonstrating causation is ridiculous and you think to defend yourself by making stuff up about me and my views. I don't enjoy talking about politics, the truth is we're always stuck in a bad situation, we have to choose our poison. I just want some incompetent government who realises we have a good thing and doesn't try to ruin it. Someone who thinks the extreme left is a good or even the best choice is just scary.

I don't remember Fooloso as being a conspiracy theorist, he had appeared to me to be just saying that it existed on both sides when I previously read him using the same examples in the same topic. Perhaps he agrees with you that the modern extreme left is benign? Doesn't seem like he said that though and it wouldn't matter if he did. — Judaka

I figured when you brought in the history of the extreme left to the discussion on political correctness, you had in mind figures like Stalin and Mao and Trotsky or the Naxalites or whatever. I saw this as a red herring, as even the supposed left which is besties with political correctness isn't Stalinist or Maoist or Trotskyist and the last one's too busy painting towns red with police blood to care about whether we say black or brown. If you look at the supposed characteristics of people who love political correctness, you'll find they're white working-middle class liberal weenies. — fdrake

I have definitively demonstrated sympathies for leftist extremism and related terrorism, going so far as to condemn it. I have so thoroughly committed myself to the idea that it is benign that I gave an example of a contemporary communist party painting the streets with the blood of cops.

I take it we agree that Foolos' post is basically correct. This extends to left and right - the left feels antsy with any colour word, and academics who misunderstand the relationship between sex and gender, say, are castigated for their opinion. The white nationalist extreme right rebranded plans for genocide of non-whites to 'ethnic replacement', they became the 'identitarian movement' and seek to stop 'white genocide'. Everyone has to rebrand when the way they speak becomes a PR nightmare.

I'm interested in asking the further question; who benefits from the function of political correctness in public discourse? Is it the people who intentionally co-opted it as part of a rhetoric of scaremongering exaggeration, or is it the target of that rhetoric? The answer's pretty clear to me, given that it's the same rhetorical structure that's rooted in the initial cooption of the term.

Excellent, well-researched post. Thank you.

I'm interested in asking the further question; who benefits from the function of political correctness in public discourse? Is it the people who intentionally co-opted it as part of a rhetoric of scaremongering exaggeration, or is it the target of that rhetoric? The answer's pretty clear to me, given that it's the same rhetorical structure that's rooted in the initial cooption of the term. — fdrake

It's just like debate over 'cultural marxism', not much to do with actual marxists, the few there are. It doesn't have much to do with reality. Like, well, the talk about the sinister "nationalists" taking over Europe. Yeah sure, nazis everywhere.

I really have come to the conclusion that what is usually written about for example universities is absolute humbug. Utter nonsense. In universities the vast majority of the young people study and occasionally party and only a tiny fraction are the so-called "activists", who historians later refer to as being essential part of the era... because saying that young people studied in the schools and universities just like their parents and grandparents would be boring.

And why is the debate like it is?

Basically this is just the way debates go in our times of algorithm based social media world, which puts like minded people to share time in complaining things they don't like and agree on how crazy the opposite views are. Best to describe it in the worst possible light with the most ludicrous examples. No point of interacting with those crazy people on the other side, you see.

A person who actually seeks to achieve things such as respect and tolerance will not be telling people to not say anything that somebody may consider offensive. He will allow people to say exactly what they are feeling and thinking, however offensive these things may be. — Ilya B Shambat

Some of the limits of offense are generational. What was generally permitted in my grandfather's time are actually crimes now. And well they should be.
I live in a culture where there is freedom to make fun of other people without being labeled a hater but it is based upon something far away from something like "however offensive."

As a matter of education, teaching children to not classify other children is an argument against "however offensive." It is a culture war. Choose sides.

Rule of thumb: — fdrake

hehe, slipping that one in the middle of a discussion on political correctness. nicely done :cool:

The proponents of political correctness like to portray anyone who takes objection to political correctness as a bigot or a neanderthal. Any expression containing even a hint of anger brings on that response. I am responding now to political correctness in a manner that is fully reasoned and that cannot be portrayed credibly as any such thing. — Ilya B Shambat

One person's political correctness is another's basic good manners.

You will need to be more specific about what form of political correctness you object to - giving examples - if a useful discussion is to occur. — andrewk

There are no good forms of political correctness. "Political correctness" - as the very history of the phrase indicates, is a term of mockery and derision. I hate it when people ask "What do you think about political correctness?" - because that is like asking "What do you think about assholes?" The phrase is so loaded that there is simply no way to discuss it "in a manner that is fully reasoned." When people launch into a discussion of "political correctness," you already know where they stand before they even complete the first sentence.

Rather than addressing "proponents of political correctness" (there are hardly any) it would be more productive to examine what it is that opponents of PC (that is, everyone who uses that phrase) find objectionable. An uncharitable view is that they simply resent being called out for bad behavior. They insist that their behavior must be socially acceptable, and when instead they are met with disapprobation, that is when the accusation of "political correctness" is leveled.

Not every behavior in a society can or should be governed by institutionalized regulations, such as criminal law. Part of society's self-regulation is social opprobrium. Society's attitudes shift; some forms of behavior become so odious that no one would dare flaunt them in public any more (like calling a dark-skinned student "the black spot"). And when such blatant transgressions of social norms do occur, no one thinks of deriding the inevitable backlash as "political correctness."

The PC phenomenon arises in cases where there is no overwhelming consensus; it is an artifact of "culture wars." A part of society seeks to deprecate some attitudes and behaviors - with a view of eventually suppressing them, the way homosexuality was and is suppressed in parts of the world, or the way blatant bigotry is suppressed elsewhere. The rhetoric of "political correctness" is a weapon with which the other part of society resists the attitude shift.

That's a great post, thank you. — fdrake

@Fooloso4's post - a catalog of American liberal grievances with a tenuous relationship to the OP - was a careless copy-paste job from various online articles. I am pretty sure that not a word of it is original.

Fooloso4's post - a catalog of American liberal grievances with a tenuous relationship to the OP - was a careless copy-paste job from various online articles. I am pretty sure that not a word of it is original. — SophistiCat

Yes, online articles that were linked and referenced. I originally posted this on another forum but when I reposted it here the quote function did not copy. The spacing and ellipsis show parts of the articles that are missing.

If anyone thought that this was original I apologize. That was not my intention. In fact, in a private message to someone I said: " It really is nothing more than what a few minutes of online research will yield." I just edited the post to make clear that I was quoting. If anyone cares to see the original it can be found on the Philosophy Now forum.

The irony here is that I actually read the article and quoted relevant points. You on the other hand seem not to have read the Wiki article you linked to. If you had you would know that the history of the term is not one of simply mockery and derision.

Apologies, I mistook carelessness for plagiarism.

The irony here is that I actually read the article and quoted relevant points. You on the other hand seem not to have read the Wiki article you linked to. If you had you would know that the history of the term is not one of simply mockery and derision. — Fooloso4

Yes, I know that the term had a complicated history, but as can be seen from the Wiki precis, throughout most of that history it was used ironically and disparagingly.

[ Re Fooloso4's post] a catalog of American liberal grievances with a tenuous relationship to the OP - was a careless copy-paste job from various online articles. I am pretty sure that not a word of it is original. — SophistiCat

What utter nonsense - it seems you are simply out to denigrate without even donning a thinking cap.



I agree with your assessment of Fooloso4's substantive and well written post.
I didn't feel it necessary to add my opinion until this latest from Sophisticat.
The contrast in content, style and attitude says it all.
Still, it all counts towards a lively discussion...
A bit of care and attention helps.

Yes, online articles that were linked and referenced. I originally posted this on another forum but when I reposted it here the quote function did not copy. The spacing and ellipsis show parts of the articles that are missing. — Fooloso4

It would be good if you could post the link to the PN forum discussion if possible.
A comparison might be interesting.

In fact, in a private message to someone I said: " It really is nothing more than what a few minutes of online research will yield." I just edited the post to make clear that I was quoting — Fooloso4

And I hope the someone replied that it was a bit more than that !
I include myself when I say that some could spend more time on minimal research. And I think it is necessary to base opinions on as much evidence as can be found. From different perspectives.

However, some - if they could even be bothered to research - lack your experience and intelligence to use what is discovered or revealed. Even the way you approach and cope with responses is admirable. I am glad that you are here in all your various capabilities.

It is quite difficult at times to make distinctions between article quotes and own thoughts.
I make a bit of a mess of it.
However, accusations of plagiarism simply show unwarranted antipathy towards a genuine writer whose work reflects serious analysis.

↪Fooloso4 Apologies, I mistook carelessness for plagiarism. — SophistiCat

Well there is the carelessness of not using the preview function and not seeing that the quotations were not set off as such, and the lack of care and regard for another person that leads to the accusations you made. If it had been my intention to plagiarize I would not have included the links that if one follows show what was said.

It would be good if you could post the link to the PN forum discussion if possible.
A comparison might be interesting. — Amity

Sure. A link to the Philosophy Now forum post:

https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25670&p=388307&hilit=fooloso4#p388141

I'm not sure if this links to the specific post or the thread but I use the same username.

In fact, in a private message to someone I said: " It really is nothing more than what a few minutes of online research will yield."
— Fooloso4

And I hope the someone replied that it was a bit more than that ! — Amity

That someone did! I will have to ask her whether she thought I was doing more than posting the information I found, as if I was trying to pass it off as original journalistic investigative reporting.

That cat really ain't so sophisticated

Replace OP's title by 'the foolishness of being polite'. Contemplate how ridiculous the very direction of this discussion becomes once it is exposed how it hinges not only on a strawman, but on the very strategy of obfuscating this strawman by the anti-pc crowd.

Because when normal, well adjusted people talk about political correctness in real life situations outside of fucking reddit and /pol/, they mean being polite. Being polite, at its very essence, IS political correctness, the first one, because being polite precisely meant to adopt the pratices of the city in which you find yourself. Its being correct in the polis you find yourself in.

So you wanna take the hill and fight to the death over what others perceive to be simply adjustements in being polite. To you, that insistence on nothing more than a standard for benign social interactions is an attack on the National spirit and the natural order.

You are wasting your time, and other people's brainpower. Anyone who decides to die on the battlefield of political correctness, even step on it seriously, is being incredibly wasteful of the time they have to spend on this earth, one side or the other. Because you are equally plebean if you think that political correctness is a moral awakening. Being polite is good, its great, and makes everything a lot easier and more pleasant, but it doesn't make you a good person.

I think the underlying problem is much more the polarization of the political discourse and the lack of even trying to engage the other side. This creates the current toxic environment.

Stepping on some toes without always saying whose. Sorry in advance.

As usual, this is just the typical right wing BS about "PC" stopping "problems from being solved" and such. What always always always turns out to be the actual motivation, the actual belief, is that the person complaining PC - never defined by them, notice - is they want to say something outlandish about another group or groups but don't want their words to be labelled as bigotry (notice the actual PC nature of this intention on their part). OP demonstrates this magnificently, tucked into their lengthy screed, with all the innuendo I'd expect:

The same people who call themselves feminists have been abetting the most viciously misogynistic ideology on the planet – Jihadist Islam. The same people who call themselves feminists have been excusing inner city thugs in their crimes against women. Of course they do not see the outcome of their policies; however the people who fund them and vote for them do. — Ilya B Shambat

Feminists have been abetting the Jihadists! Goodness.me, I wonder how they are doing that, and why? OP doesn't say of course, but I've seen the song and dance before. OP will reference Muslim rapes, probably in Sweden, and claim the stats are through the roof (and watch how poorly that will stand up to scrutiny), but PC Culture prevents them from saying it without being called unkind things. Naturally, others will point out the way OP and those inflating this to kingdom come are actually "addressing" this problem in both counter productive ways and lying about it to ludicrous extremes. "Teresa May invited all the Muslims here!", they will lie, ignoring the actual problem the EU was addressing and how they were going about trying to alleviate the numbers problem.

"The Muslims are invading!", they will say. No admission that the country(is) the asylum seekers came from were levelled by "freedom fighters" directly helped by (especially) the U.S. and often even directly by the U.S. military. Ah, but invading a country with their soldiers and missiles, and funding terrorists to overthrow the government, has no effect on people trying to flee to places they won't be attacked. I mean it's not like Libya had just been destroyed by U.S.. And Iraq. And Afganistan. Syria, though the government avoided toppling. Yemen in the process of it, though the Democrats have use the War Powers act so who knows how that will go. Iran has been in their sights for awhile, as overthrowing their previous democracy wasn't long lasting enough. Notice the constant build up to establish a pretext for invading. When Iranians begin fleeing en masse from a U.S. invasion they will be decried by the right.

Then OP and co. will say this is all irrelevant (imagine that, war irrelevant to people fleeing war zones), and that this is all about "the libs" not wanting to say there is a problem with a specific group of people (the Muslims, the blacks, the Mexicans, and so on; depends on the flavor of the week) because they don't want to sound racist. And so OP and co. conclude "the libs" are just being PC. It's not as if the problem trying to be evaded is the absurd way the right is trying to solve a some social problem (e.g. yelling at Muslims to go home), or the fact that they immediately drop into racist commentary about these people, or like about the nature, scope or even occurrence of the problem.

No, "the libs" just don't want to sound mean and so they team up with the mean, rapist Muslims thugs. That's definitely what's actually happening in reality and there couldn't possibly be any misrepresentation here.

I think the underlying problem is much more the polarization of the political discourse and the lack of even trying to engage the other side. This creates the current toxic environment — ssu

I think statements like this are both overstated in importance and is just an example "both sides are the problem" vacuousness. People don't really change their minds about politics through discussion with the other side, this is all for appearances sake in reality. To look open minded without ever actually showing one changes anything they believe in politics (aside from large ideology shifts).

Let's take a pretty huge example. The huge amount of people fleeing from countries like Syria was, in the U.S., promised by the then-President-elect Trump to be stopped with a (quoting) "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the country". And lo and behold, he passed that with an executive order. The courts struck it down, so it was rewritten in an attempt to get the same effect without having the obviously group-directed language. The American left calling this bigoted isn't even comparable to the passing of this travel ban. And this generalizes, as often these kinds of actions are, often, either pointless (because by comparison to the EU, the U.S. has taken in much fewer in recent years) or they are based on absurd claims that can't possibly be taken seriously.

The liberals have their own vices, which is why I became disaffected with their wishy washy ideology. But the right live on another planet and no amount of me pretending this isn't right wing lunacy most of the time is going to change that. Claims of invading "Mexicans" and Muslims, claims that Obama wasn't actually an American citizen, that pulling out of the World Court was justified because the UN wants to genocide white people and hates America, that climate change is a hoax/a Chinese hoax in particular, ad infinitum. Those and innumerable cases like them are the chief causes of the toxicity. It's not about principles being different, people aren't usually directly arguing about principles (and even when they say they are, they're often hiding the ball about what they're disagreeing about). One side is not good, the other constructs a worldview that requires an incredibly level "believe absolutely anything suits me no matter how crazy".