|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 23, 2018 13:31:45 GMT
I think it would be good to have a discussion about political correctness. What are peoples' views on this subject?
|
|
|
Post by assisi on May 23, 2018 17:50:38 GMT
I think it would be good to have a discussion about political correctness. What are peoples' views on this subject? PC is rotten to the core. Far removed from reality, anti-free speech and extremely dangerous in that it is a vehicle to control thought and punish those whose views transgress its rules. I used to allow it a little laxity in that I tried to convince myself that it might have originated in good sentiments such as helping the less fortunate who felt discriminated against. However time and experience has shown it to be an ugly ideology that is more interested in punishing others, re-interpreting history in a narrow way and creating a subset of society that can be hated and used as a reason to spread an individualist, consumerist, global and distinctly weird and anti-human culture. And most of all, it's cowardly, using the PC hordes to pick upon individuals who have transgressed and ruin them. Here's a snippet from a good essay on PC: Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 23, 2018 18:07:45 GMT
Great analysis, Assisi. I couldn't agree more.
Bruce Charlton puts it well in his book Thought Prison: The Fundamental Nature of Political Correctness (which is available in full online). He argues that PC is NOT well-intentioned. I think the importance of this point can hardly be exaggerated.
PC is NOT motivated by concern for black people, women, homosexuals, ethnic minorities, etc.
PC is never Pro. It is anti-. It is not pro-black, but anti-white. it is not pro-Islam, but anti-Christianity. It is not pro-homosexual, but anti-heterosexual. It is not pro-female, but anti-male.
It has a kind of instinct against whatever actually exists; a desire to dissolve social bonds and traditions.
It will use a minority culture to undermine a majority culture. As soon as the majority culture is destroyed it will move onto the minority culture.
You can see this, for instance, when it comes to PC attitudes towards Catholicism in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. PC was pro-Catholic and anti-Protestant, pro-nationalist and anti-Unionist in Northern Ireland, since Unionism and Protestantism was the bigger target. Catholicism and nationalism could be used as a weapon against the majority culture-- for the time being. The British left had a love affair with the IRA.
In the Republic, however, especially after the Good Friday agreement, Catholicism and Irish nationalism was the enemy-- especially Catholicism, of course.
I think people are conditioned to feel anxiety at any hint they are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. etc. They have had this drummed into them their entire lives and actually become neurotic and self-policing about it.
I think it is the most nefarious force of our time, culturally speaking.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 24, 2018 20:05:32 GMT
In theory, political correctness is no more than courtesy. (There are certain jokes I as a Catholic Irishman can make about the Church and the country but which would offend me if made under most circumstances by a non-Catholic or non-Irish person.) It is also reasonable enough to take into account that certain cultural artefacts which we have inherited can genuinely be considered offensive (Little Black Sambo - who is Indian BTW, or the villainous gollywogs in Enid Blyton's NODDY books; I remember reading both of these as a child without meaning any harm - or the term "squaw" for a Red Indian woman, which is really horrible once you know what it means.) The problems with political correctness as generally perceived are: (a)Presumption of guilt. (b) Not distinguishing between different degrees of offence (c) The threat of force, either through intimidation or by invoking the authorities to punish the person who has spoken out of line. (d) Using the concept to drastically narrow the range of permitted opinion (e.g. I remember seeing a British journalist recently referring to "racist and anti-abortion opinions" as if these were equally nefarious.) (e) Real racists, misogynists etc defending themselves by saying anyone who objects to their antics is just displaying "political correctness". Holocaust deniers have been playing that trick for years.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 25, 2018 12:50:56 GMT
Are you sure you are correct about "squaw", Hibernicus? There seems to be some debate. anthropology.si.edu/goddard/squaw_1.pdfI wouldn't use the term "sambo" today, but I don't think any of these things are a big deal, to be honest. I also dislike the idea that anyone can make a joke or use a term that can't be used by anyone else. The only exception to this principle, in my view, should be what one says about oneself-- I could make a self-mocking joke about my figure, but I'd be miffed if someone else did it. So much of PC seems arbitrary-- for instance, that you can say "person of colour" but not "coloured person"-- how silly is that? Nor do I understand why "handicapped" is worse than "disabled". Besides, I think PC extends far, far beyond the use of terminology. Other contexts I would cite: 1) The assumption of consensus where no consensus exists-- for instance, throwing around terms like "trans rights". 2) Guilt by association, as Hibernicus rightly says-- the idea that I somehow have to disassociate myself from the misdeeds of other people who share some characteristic with me. (In fairness, I sometimes think conservatives do the same thing when it comes to demanding Muslims vocally denounce Islamic terrorism. I've even fallen into this trap myself, in the past. Nobody should be held accountable for any deeds except their own. Admittedly, religion is different from sex and skin colour and other innate categories.) Or the idea that you can't subscribe to a viewpoint because it's "tainted" with some extreme version-- for instance, the idea that every kind of nationalism is "like, liderally Hidler". 3) The idea that people occupy neat categories of "oppressed" and "oppressor", "marginalised" and "mainstream", etc. So that the wealthy Asian businesswoman who walks past a homeless white man is less privileged than he is.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on May 29, 2018 20:46:04 GMT
Are you sure you are correct about "squaw", Hibernicus? There seems to be some debate. anthropology.si.edu/goddard/squaw_1.pdfI wouldn't use the term "sambo" today, but I don't think any of these things are a big deal, to be honest. I also dislike the idea that anyone can make a joke or use a term that can't be used by anyone else. The only exception to this principle, in my view, should be what one says about oneself-- I could make a self-mocking joke about my figure, but I'd be miffed if someone else did it. So much of PC seems arbitrary-- for instance, that you can say "person of colour" but not "coloured person"-- how silly is that? Nor do I understand why "handicapped" is worse than "disabled". Besides, I think PC extends far, far beyond the use of terminology. Other contexts I would cite: 1) The assumption of consensus where no consensus exists-- for instance, throwing around terms like "trans rights". 2) Guilt by association, as Hibernicus rightly says-- the idea that I somehow have to disassociate myself from the misdeeds of other people who share some characteristic with me. (In fairness, I sometimes think conservatives do the same thing when it comes to demanding Muslims vocally denounce Islamic terrorism. I've even fallen into this trap myself, in the past. Nobody should be held accountable for any deeds except their own. Admittedly, religion is different from sex and skin colour and other innate categories.) Or the idea that you can't subscribe to a viewpoint because it's "tainted" with some extreme version-- for instance, the idea that every kind of nationalism is "like, liderally Hidler". 3) The idea that people occupy neat categories of "oppressed" and "oppressor", "marginalised" and "mainstream", etc. So that the wealthy Asian businesswoman who walks past a homeless white man is less privileged than he is. I'm not 100% convinced that ' religion is different from sex and skin colour and other innate categories.' I do think there is at least an argument for saying while sex and skin colour are indeed biologically innate, the religious aspiration is mentally or spiritually innate also. We may be underplaying the importance of the religious sentiment by assuming it to be acquired rather than innate. This argument may be important not only from a philosophical viewpoint but also in the light of legal cases that may occur where for example, gender identity is declared to trump religious identity. I'm not only thinking of the natural law that is 'written on the heart', but the high frequency of ancient burial sites that included precious or useful objects buried with the dead. These people are thought to have believed in an afterlife where the buried objects could be used or worn by the deceased. These findings go back to nomadic peoples before any of the ancient civilisations such as Egypt or Mesopotamia. To bury precious objects that could be used by the living illustrates how important these beliefs would have been. It also, I think, refutes the oft repeated idea that religion was invented to control people as these people were small groups of nomadic people, not settled town or city dwellers where a controlling social hierarchy may eventually be thought of as useful. If the religious sentiment is mentally or spiritually innate then we have to account for it in non-believers too. Here I would point to a multitude of areas where the religious sentiment, if denied a transcendent God(s), exhibits itself elsewhere. For example belief in angels, ghosts, spiritualism, astrology, drug experiences, science, the Arts. Also anytime a person or system is deified, such as marxism or varios celebrities. The popularity of science fiction, fantasy fiction, horror and apocalyptic books and movies. Even some dyed in the wool atheists are fixated on religion, if only to deny is or denounce it. In short many non-believers are looking for a transcendent 'fix', unknowingly, to fill the gap.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 30, 2018 20:59:53 GMT
Roseanne Barr's TV series was cancelled because she sent one tweet which was considered racist. What do you think about this?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 30, 2018 21:18:34 GMT
Roseanne Barr's TV series was cancelled because she sent on tweet which was considered racist. What do you think about this? Saying that it was "considered racist" is a considerable understatement. She said about a former Obama administration official " [if] muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby = vj [Valerie Jarrett].”". It just so happens that Jarrett is black and not Muslim at all, but was born in Iran to American parents. Referring to a black person as an ape is definitely racist by any reasonable barometer, and her insinuation that because Jarrett was born in Iran, she must be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, (even though the MB is a Sunni organisation and thus not hugely popular in Shia Iran), betrays a profound ignorance of the Middle East and is clearly intended as a personal attack.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 30, 2018 21:28:36 GMT
I agree it was probably racist, and yes, it was extremely insulting and offensive. But the sheer fury of the reaction, and the cancelling a whole show because of one quickly-deleted tweet for which the woman apologized, seems excessive.
I wonder is it possible for this pitch of sensitivity to be continued forever? It seems to me like it's guaranteed to snap at some point. The whole Starbucks thing, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 30, 2018 21:36:00 GMT
I agree it was probably racist, but the sheer fury of the reaction, and the cancelling a whole show because of one quickly-deleted tweet for which the woman apologized, seems excessive. I wonder is it possible for this pitch of sensitivity to be continued forever? It seems to me like it's guaranteed to snap at some point. The whole Starbucks thing, as well. If you're going to be using language like that, you can expect a strong reaction. There is also the question of defamation, given that she accused Jarrett of being part of the Muslim Brotherhood, even though she is not Muslim at all. Given that the show is named after her, and she is the main character, no, I don't think it is excessive. She made the comments, she should pay the price. It's not an issue of sensitivity, it's an issue of basic human decency.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 30, 2018 21:52:23 GMT
But people say obnoxious things all the time. For instance, all the hullaballoo over Marian Keyes calling voters in Roscommon hate-filled bigots after the marriage referendum: www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/marian-keyes-admits-she-went-for-cheap-laugh-with-offensive-tweet-about-roscommonsouth-leitrim-vote-in-marriage-referendum-31248992.htmlWas that obnoxious? Yes. Would it make me never want to read her books? Yes. Should she have apologised? Yes. But if her publisher had refused to publish any of her future books, I'd say: "OK, that's a bit much". it seems to me a dangerous situation when a whole career can be ruined because someone says something stupid. I agree she should pay a price, but the price seems excessive. And it seems to me that there's a kind of hysteria about the whole thing...you have to join in the denunciations or you, too, will be considered a racist. Now, I did hear the argument that this tweet was in the context of lots of previous dodgy statements. But I imagine the reaction would have been the same if that wasn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 30, 2018 22:07:29 GMT
In fact, I will probably delete my posts here in case they rebound on me. And that is a pretty sure sign that we are living in a climate of fear.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on May 31, 2018 8:15:40 GMT
Roseanne Barr's TV series was cancelled because she sent one tweet which was considered racist. What do you think about this? Excessive reaction, but one unlikely to be solely abouting punishing her, or virtue signalling the network's disagreement with the sentiment in her tweet. TV series get cancelled at the drop of a hat over there; if they felt this change in her reputation might lead to viewer boycotts, they'd just cancel for commercial reasons. I think for many celebrities, a Twitter account is fast becoming a thing too risky to have. On-line communication does something to people anyway, and it's not good. I've been researching it a bit recently. It tends to make us objectify the other person more. The nuances of natural face-to-face interaction makes for a very different experience of the person and (consequently) of our own behaviour toward them.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 13, 2018 19:20:38 GMT
I've come to realize I'm exaggerating the dangers of political correctness. I don't understand why Dave Cullen is getting so worked up about gender-blind casting in this video. Apparently, Ruth Negga will play Hamlet at the Gate theatre soon. Why not? Anyone who opposes this is sexist, and probably racist. If this is what it takes to smash sexism and racism, then I say-- to heck with "common sense" or "tradition"! www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGv__fIZZ6Y
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 18, 2018 22:09:24 GMT
|
|