Where Political Correctness Went Wrong

Post Reply New Topic

What we think it is though is about as intimately tied as imaginable to what we would logically think will or won't work. It's only natural that if someone disagrees with Alain (or yourself) on this point, at least who wants to clarify their opinion, will have to return to why they don't think it will work and most often that's going to have something to do with what they think political correctness 'really' is. There really isn't any escaping that one.


Ok, in that specific kind of instance I do think you'll do better with that being polite to the rich or whoever you see at the top of the hierarchy. You'll tend to attract more interest and funding from that sector with honey than with vinegar.

I don't want to ban words, but I won't say it. I will substitute inanities in song lyrics.

Politeness should include equal hiring opportunities and a willingness to accept any color doctor or nurse, right? Politeness should include consideration for people who'd rather not hear someone quote their racist-ass grandpa? Practically, and as a matter of politeness, I'd probably ignore the grandpa.

For the first and only time: If you raise an argument which I disagree with, and regarding which I feel inclined to voice my disagreement, you may bet your ass I shall do so.

You may feel free to pout, to scream, to stamp and to swear, but you may be assured that it will grant you precisely zero power to control how I choose to address your own remarks.




You may also rest assured that I shall call out piss-poor ad hominem, such as the above, for what it is. Give me a single example to support your ridiculous claim.



As a wise man once said: duh.



And the "goddamn" point of my response is?



That, dear Goon, is where you're completely wrong.



Take a moment to read my post history since, ooh, I don't know, 5 years back or so, and you will find numerous examples of my pointing out the Marxism for what it is, despite the unwillingness of SJWs and friends to admit such.



And as someone who understands the deep, inherent flaws of Marxist ideology, my goal is to make sure well-intentioned idealists don't screw up any more nations.



And universally oblivious to the cognitive dissonance required to believe you represent "Empathy, Justice and Fairness" while referring to anyone not in your in-group as "greedy s**ts", "nazis", etc.



Because if everyone just listened and believed instead of letting nuisances like critical thinking get in the way, the world would turn into a magical candy land full of sugar and sweetness!





Unlikely. It's time for a new veneer and maybe a lick of paint again, in the vain hope that you'll manage to con enough people into believing you're peddling something other than Marxism. It's a tale that's older than you or I, and it's little more than a sideshow that occasionally gains a foothold in the mainstream.



Most SJWs will, inevitably, grow up and learn about this place the rest of us call "reality", which comes with responsibilities like mortgages, taxes and children, only to watch on helplessly as the latter fall foul of the few who cling to their lunacy long enough to become gender studies professors.



The sad part is, I'm reasonably certain you actually believe that's true.

Now tell me all about how wonderful the world will be if we all just bend over for big momma government.

A great analysis of what the current 'compassion' of the day looks like.

[quote="adifferentname"][quote="GoonSquad"]Again, this really isn't what this thread is about. If you want to debate what political correctness is, start another thread.



quote]

But...how can you discuss anything without first agreeing upon what that thing IS?

PC advocates come across as offensive, because they tell people how they should think, and what words they should use.

PC advocates assume indirect, vague,"PC-speak" is right, and direct, potentially upsetting descriptive language is wrong.

PC advocates come across as hiding the truth with their suggestions of indirect, vague language.

PC advocates may insult the people they want to help, by suggesting that they are too "soft" to handle language that could be interpreted to be offensive.

PC advocates may insult people they want to help, by speaking and labeling these people for them.

PC advocates continually identify new "micro-aggression" language, which creates a language-minefield regarding what is considered offensive. [rhetorical] Is it "midget", "little people" or "dwarf"? Is it PC to refer to a black person as "black" now?

PC advocates may insult the person they want to help, because the PC-speak requires people to think of minorities people as other, needing special treatment, not equal.

It all comes back to power. Microaggressions, you can literally twist anything into one. If you get someone under your thumb with those, you can do the kind of brain control Goonsquad was talking about. It's all about putting your group on the top and everyone else under your thumb.

Priming works.

We should use modern management strategies derived from social psychology. I agree with the video to that extent.

Here's an example of an ineffective and effective argument for a real world problem--chronic homellessness.

Most chronically homeless people suffer from untreated mental illness and many have comorbid SUD. These folks look like your stereotypical winos, concequently they are not very sympathetic, and they cannot qualify for traditional anti-homelessness programs that require sobriety and stable behavior before you get housing.

There's about 25 years worth of research that says giving these people unconditional housing first is the best way to deal with them. (Google pathways to housing and downtown emergency service center)

However, in spite of all this research, housing first for chronically homeless is an extremely hard sell for red state governments and religious nonprofits that deal with homeless people.

If you try to argue for housing first to these groups, with direct appeals to compassion and fairness, they counter with 'tough love' and assert that housing first will just enable and reward bad behavior. These people argue that housing is a reward for sobriety, etc.

Then, you produce research that shows most chronically homeless people simply cannot achieve sobriety while living on the streets and that housing does not increase substance abuse. But, they simply refuse to accept the research because it clashes with their intuitive world view.

So, your advocacy fails.

HOWEVER, research also shows that chronically homeless people cost society lots of money in jail stays and emergency room visits. Therefore advocates dropped their appeals to compassion and justice and concentrated on the financial impacts of leaving homeless people in the wild.

The research shows that a chronically homeless person can cost society $60,000.00/year when we just let police and hospitals deal with them. But, we can house them (with support) for about $20,000.00.

This proved to be such a compelling argument that (ruby red) Utah adopted housing first as a statewide policy with great success.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751 ... -heres-how

This was an effective argument, because it appealed to the values of the target, in this case red state fiscal conservatives.


So, I don't think UBI will ever work for a host of reasons--economic, sociological, psychological--but I'm not really the type of person you would need to convince...

The people you need to convince are conservatives and rich folks. So, tell me how you would convince some type A Radian as*hole like John Schnatter and working class conservatives who want work and not welfare.

Yes, this thread is about the idea in the video. In order to discuss that, we all need to agree on the video's definition of political correctness.

How people on the right and left define PC would be an excellent thread topic, but it is off topic here.

You should start that thread....

Marxism in microcosm.

That's what you need. We all need no such thing.

No curiosity needed when a person has unassailable self-righteousness.

See, what you aren't getting is that it is not always a zero-sum game..

That notion is what has really poisoned politics and discourse in this country.

What does it actually cost you and yours to treat everyone with Politeness and Consideration?

No argument needed when you're fluent in ad hominem.

Well, yeah, I'd totally agree with you about racist grandpa....

Hiring and equal opportunities should be a matter of law, as far as I can see.

The willingness to accept a doctor or nurse is a bit more tricky. If we start trying to regulate that, we're slipping into the realm of overt thought policing and that isn't going to end well.

Again, thing like that need to be addressed with sensitivity and tact if we actually what to change hearts and minds... SJW mind control FTW!

While I don't see how I could criticize the basis for your grotesque oversimplification nicely, ADN, my comment went to a common type of b/w thinking.