The psychology of political correctness

This was a cross-Atlantic misunderstanding caused by using different definitions and observing different actions in two different nations with a somewhat different sense of humor (mine is sicker and I think much less PC, but don't hold me to that), see previous references.As I admit, I did not title my post accurately so at least some of this is misunderstanding is my fault. That being said I hereby cease all hostilities.BTW, great post.

quote:

---

The problem is you are using the appropriate narrow definition of trigger warnings that is likely used in your nation and I am condemning its overuse to avoid the truth and censor content in this nation.

​

I think we are actually speaking past each other because we are actually debating two different subjects.

---

That makes sense of this.Those aren't called trigger warnings. They're just warnings and dumb disclaimers and the like.They're stupid, but they're something utterly and entirely different. And that's not a cultural thing. I don't think anybody calls the things you seem to referencing 'trigger warnings'.

I'm not castigating all liberals. I consider myself a classical liberal. I have some issues with modern-day liberals, and I often distinguish between this brand of liberalism by calling them Progressives. One such is issue is with some Progressive views on Political Correctness. I apologize for any confusion on my end, it was not intended. Same/same. I think this is where the confusion lies... My fault. I didn't express my views beforehand. In modern vernacular, people use the term "liberal" to denote people on the left of the political spectrum. My conception of liberalism stems from my understanding of Classical Liberalism. Modern-day liberalism, in my opinion, comes from the Progressive Era (think FDR timeline). I sometimes distinguish between liberals and Progressives, although I interchangeably also use modern-day conceptions of liberals because it is common as part of the vernacular.With that in mind, I was critical of how some Progressives view Political Correctness. And this doesn't mean only people in politics. Because I do understand why it might not be in the best interest of Bernie Sanders to attack the people who hijacked his airtime. I was referring more to Progressives who let that incident go simply because they agree with BLM in principle. But because they happened to be black, perhaps many felt that calling them out for their rudeness would be considered "racist." That's too extreme and ridiculous, in my opinion. The way I see it, you can still agree with BLM in principle AND call out those ladies for what they did. It's like they're so terrified of being branded a racist if they check them on their behavior.

You disagree that, on par, liberals generally view political correctness as something to aspire towards?

Actually, a lot would, sadly. Type in "trigger warning" in a YouTube search and be prepared to cringe. But I am delighted to hear that you think it's stupid too... Or at least taking something serious like a real trigger warning (actual PTSD) and making a mockery of it (oh, look at me, I'm emo... so many feels).

Aspire to?Do you have any support for that statement? What is your definition of political correctness anyway? Perhaps you simply define political correctness as what you see liberals do.Does your question really address what I've been calling you on?Let's say that the percentage of liberals who were more circumspect in their speech was larger than that of conservatives. Would even that support the conclusion that 'most liberals' aspire to political correctness? Nope.I know what it means to be liberal on social issues, but beyond the views on the issues that are associated with being liberal, no I don't know what most liberals aspire to, and I doubt that you do either. 'Liberals tend to disfavor the death penalty.' Yeah I'm down with that. 'Liberals have no respect for the victims of serious crime.' uh, how could you know that?According to you, Sean Penn represents all progressives and it is fair to tar all of them with that ridiculous bit of journalism on El Chapo that he conducted. Which survey allowed you to do that?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, like a little badge of honor. Only that it's an observation.

quote:

---

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term primarily used as a pejorative to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society; in pejorative usage, those who use the term are generally implying that these policies are excessive.

---

Pretty spot on, considering I didn't write it. No, although I would say that it is a fairly common characteristic among self-described liberals. I don't know; you tell me. Perhaps you can't acknowledge it because it's too close to how you view things and it obviously is meant as an unflattering pejorative. And I'm not saying that to be derisive or hostile to you. Kind of like an inability to see the forest from the trees. No, it's an example of a mindset commonly found among Progressives. And what allows me to do that is perspective. You can disagree with it. I have repeatedly stated that it is an opinion of mine.What more do you want me to say?

Political Correctness originated with Cultural Marxism and is an attack on freedom of thought and speech.I've understood for years that the term "Progressive" used as a political slogan originated with the Communist Party in the USA as a euphemism to hide their true politics. Google references at least show that the terms are associated.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, most liberals do not generally 'aspire to' using language that attempts not to offend anyone in a way that correctly is labeled with perjoratives, and particularly using such language to excess. Are there people who spew out negative language without discretion without caring whether it is offensive? Is calling those people out PC?Perhaps you could cite an example of language you think is PC, and that you wish to say liberals use, and then we can see how you apply PC. I suspect that PC means simply calling you or others on their own excesses. I do think calling people out on goofy excesses is legitimate, although I don't 'aspire to' (direct my hopes and ambitions toward) that. Sounds pretty goofy to me.If someone is doing something bad, then negative words are going to be used to describe them. I have no problem with that. But overgeneralize, and call everyone that, and yeah, I do have an problem with that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That sure was helpful, Faith. Top link in the search...Communist Party USA – Communist Party USA

quote:

---

The Communist Party has an unparalleled history in the progressive movement of the United States, from the struggle against Jim Crow segregation, the organizing of the industrial unions, from the canneries of California, to the sweatshops of New York City.

---

That's a pretty frightening indictment of the Communist Party. They claim essentially every civil right success ever made in the history of the US. Apparently if not for the Communist Party, it would still be 1952. Wouldn't we have been better off without this kind of, er, progressiveness.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Agree to disagree There's a difference between tact (discretion) and PC. PC is an extreme attempt not to offend usually to show contrition or solidarity towards a group or belief. As I described with Percy, not calling out the Seattle chapter of the BLM would qualify. Why might some people not call them out? Well, they may agree with the BLM movement in principal, but are afraid to call out their behavior out of some misplaced fear of being branded as racist (even though you can agree with the content but not agree with the method of delivery for that content). "Oh, you only called them out because they are black." That kind of thing... That's not demonstrating discretion, that's being afraid of the PC Police (people who claim you're sexist, racist, homophobic, etc if you challenge their bullshit, not on the merits of what you're actually arguing, but intentionally distorting it to create a red herring and thus making themselves appear morally superior). No, it's about patronizingly excessive contrition. I never said all. I have repeatedly stated some do. The furthest I went is that it is a fairly common trait among Progressives.

Propaganda. Something the CP is particularly known for.

Afraid to call out what behavior, specifically? And in what terms? Labeling every supporter of BLM based on someone rioting or shooting policeman? What exactly are people afraid to say.And you believe liberals aspire to this. Sorry. Not buying that. You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but you haven't been very convincing. So the liberals are responsible for fear on the part of someone who cannot express themselves in terms that are not racist? Absent some example, I cannot judge whether the person in question is expressing racism. Seriously, there are plenty of ways to address disagreement with BLM without being racist. And there are some ways to do it in racist terminology.Here is a speech from one of Trump's endorsers. Probably belongs in the primary season thread...

quote:

---

Duke had detailed his support for Trump in a Facebook post on Thursday.

​

"I think he deserves a close look by those who believe the era of political correctness needs to come to an end," Duke wrote.

​

He touted Trump's strength on immigration, breaking up "Jewish dominated lobbies and super PACS that are corrupting and controlling American politics," preventing war with Russia, exposing media "lies" and ensuring "that White-Americans are allowed to preserve and promote their heritage and interests just as all other groups are allowed to do."

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Exactly. So perhaps the idea that progressive is somehow irrecoverably linked to the Communist Party can be dismissed in a similar way. Because surely those things cited in the propaganda were considered progressive. Yet you acknowledge that 'the Party' deserves no credit.

I have yet to figure out how your mind works. In fact I'm sure I'll never figure it out. All I know is that most of the time I can't make any sense at all out of your responses. The TERM Progressive as a political label is what I was talking about and I didn't get the connection from the CP itself but probably from some neoconservatives calling them out for the euphemism designed to bamboozle us dumb Americans.Now if this doesn't answer you it's probably because I don't have a clue what you were trying to say, so I'm going to sleep and forgetting about it.