What is political correctness?

[the other bob wilson]

Just finished reading a very long piece on political correctness;-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...y-donald-trump

which sums up completely how I feel about things at the moment. I'd be interested in how people on here would define political correctness because, as the writer of the piece says, it's an easy and convenient thing to rail against, but what is it really?

Similarly, who are this mainstream liberal elite that we are all supposed to be against these days? Maybe it's my age, but the notion of people with liberal, progressive views representing the "establishment" is one I struggle with because that's never been what I have thought of when that word was used.

People talked about how this liberal elite controls us and, yet, when I look at the privately owned print, social and video news media in this country and America, I see more representation of the views that have led to the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump than I do of this mysterious elite establishment that has controlled us for the last however many decades it's been before we all saw the light in 2016 - by and large, I would have thought the establishment as I define it will have been pretty happy with what has happened this year on both sides of the Atlantic.

[Barry Dragon]

The EU are the liberal elite for the use of the phrase in the UK.

And its Obama in the US. Acutally probably more the Clintons

[LordKenwyne]

I can't be reading that but I think it is impossible to define because you cannot tell someone what does and doesn't offend someone.

Some say that causing offence is a right. But then at what point does it become a hate crime.

I don't think you can define it. It is just about being sensible and realising where the red line is. Why are minorities protected but majorities can be thrown under the bus though?.

People on social media are so quick to jump to defend migrants for example. Whatever your opinion on them, if you criticise the idea of it you are immediately attacked.

People are offended by attacks on others over attacks on themselves. I couldn't give a hoot if someone insulted where I am from or who I am.

People are outraged by comments in the media, but spend 5 minutes browsing youtube comment sections for example. Far more hatred thrown about and people don't care. Twitter is a cesspool of hatred but people think people like Nigel Farage are satan incarnate. He is white male, part of a majority - so he is easy to attack. And people can feel good about themselves for it.

[Wales-Bales]

I think PC is used as a tool to close down arguments, and as a form of self-censorship. As mentioned above, liberal elites are Obama/Clinton/Fabians/EU mafia, etc, but they are not really liberal they are commies. Their vision is for a one world government run for the bendfit of the elites and the corporations/banks. You can see how jobs have disappeared from the West, secretive trade deals are being negotiated, migrants are flooding in, and people are feeling disenfranchised. This all all by design as the aim is to break down countries and their cultures. You might have also noticed increasing surveillance and a creeping militarisation of the police. Depending on who you ask, you may get differing views about what the future has install for all of us.

[Mrs Steve R]

I think PC is used as a tool to close down arguments, and as a form of self-censorship. As mentioned above, liberal elites are Obama/Clinton/Fabians/EU mafia, etc, but they are not really liberal they are commies. Their vision is for a one world government run for the bendfit of the elites and the corporations/banks. You can see how jobs have disappeared from the West, secretive trade deals are being negotiated, migrants are flooding in, and people are feeling disenfranchised. This all all by design as the aim is to break down countries and their cultures. You might have also noticed increasing surveillance and a creeping militarisation of the police. Depending on who you ask, you may get differing views about what the future has install for all of us.

Political Correctness = Language and Thought Control
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/02/1...ought-control/

[the other bob wilson]

Political Correctness = Language and Thought Control
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/02/1...ought-control/

I thought that having read about political correctness from one viewpoint, I should do so from another and so read the piece in the link you posted.

I read the first third or so of it and thought it was just the sort on agenda driven rant I expected it to be, but then the writer started to make arguments that was backed up by research and I began to find myself agreeing with some of what was being said.

I cannot believe anyone would have too many arguments with the writer when they say "If you are concerned about hurting people’s feelings unnecessarily, you can always find ways to express something in the right way. In those kind of situations, what really matters is the way you say words, not what you say." - that's what I have always tried to do.

However, I've done that not because I was afraid of upsetting these bastions of political correctness that the writer would have us believe are looking over our shoulders at everything we say, type or write, but because it's the right and proper thing to do.

Gluey has it that this liberal elite is some left of centre mafia (to use his word) ranging from Obama and the Clintons through to those who we were supposed to have fought the cold war against. I just don't see that I'm afraid and find it amusing that it is this coalition of what seems to be anyone he doesn't like who is responsible for "political correctness" - presumably those in the Tory party who campaigned on the remain side were in with these communists as well?

Yes, I accept that there are examples around (some of which appear in the article) where the term "political correctness gone mad" can be applied and, yes, I mentioned before on here that the labeling of people who voted to leave the EU as racist was something that was applied far too freely (occasionally by myself), but, sorry, I just don't see political correctness as being the sort of threat it's made out to be in that article.

No, it seems to me that it's just as likely to be a shield used by the likes of Donald Trump to hide behind as he puts any challenging of untruths he has told (e.g. remarks about the character of Mexicans and his claim about millions of illegal votes) down to "political correctness", so we see the term being used by those who say that they are fighting against it as a way in which they try to stifle debate and dissent - whose trying to "reduce the scope of free thought" there?

[Wales-Bales]

Wales-Bales has it that this liberal elite is some left of centre mafia (to use his word) ranging from Obama and the Clintons through to those who we were supposed to have fought the cold war against. I just don't see that I'm afraid and find it amusing that it is this coalition of what seems to be anyone he doesn't like who is responsible for "political correctness" - presumably those in the Tory party who campaigned on the remain side were in with these communists as well?

I suggested above to do some research the Fabian Society and their long term goals. You could also try the Council on Foreign Relations. Also I never mentioned "those who we were supposed to have fought the cold war against" as being part of this group, I included those in charge of the EU.

[jon1959]

I suggested above to do some research the Fabian Society and their long term goals. You could also try the Council on Foreign Relations. Also I never mentioned "those who we were supposed to have fought the cold war against" as being part of this group, I included those in charge of the EU.

What is the significance of the Fabian Society for this discussion on 'political correctness' and the evil 'liberal elite' that are out to destroy the ancient British pleasures of watching the Black And White Minstrels and queer bashing?

The Fabians are a small organisation (now about 7,000 member) affiliated to the Labour Party, and as far as i can see do all their stuff out in the open. They mainly produce pamphlets and stage political discussion meetings. They are the epitome of social democratic, evolutionary, reformist centre-left politics. They may have a few members in positions of influence in the Labour Party, but I don't think they run the banks, the press, multi-national businesses, major lobbying networks or Holywood studios!

[the other bob wilson]

I suggested above to do some research the Fabian Society and their long term goals. You could also try the Council on Foreign Relations. Also I never mentioned "those who we were supposed to have fought the cold war against" as being part of this group, I included those in charge of the EU.

You said the architects of political correctness were "not really liberal they are commies" therefore, naturally enough I feel, I presumed that the genuine article were included as well as ones playing at being a "liberal elite".

[Gabalphaville]

I thought that having read about political correctness from one viewpoint, I should do so from another and so read the piece in the link you posted.

I read the first third or so of it and thought it was just the sort on agenda driven rant I expected it to be, but then the writer started to make arguments that was backed up by research and I began to find myself agreeing with some of what was being said.

I cannot believe anyone would have too many arguments with the writer when they say "If you are concerned about hurting people’s feelings unnecessarily, you can always find ways to express something in the right way. In those kind of situations, what really matters is the way you say words, not what you say." - that's what I have always tried to do.

However, I've done that not because I was afraid of upsetting these bastions of political correctness that the writer would have us believe are looking over our shoulders at everything we say, type or write, but because it's the right and proper thing to do.

Gluey has it that this liberal elite is some left of centre mafia (to use his word) ranging from Obama and the Clintons through to those who we were supposed to have fought the cold war against. I just don't see that I'm afraid and find it amusing that it is this coalition of what seems to be anyone he doesn't like who is responsible for "political correctness" - presumably those in the Tory party who campaigned on the remain side were in with these communists as well?

Yes, I accept that there are examples around (some of which appear in the article) where the term "political correctness gone mad" can be applied and, yes, I mentioned before on here that the labeling of people who voted to leave the EU as racist was something that was applied far too freely (occasionally by myself), but, sorry, I just don't see political correctness as being the sort of threat it's made out to be in that article.

No, it seems to me that it's just as likely to be a shield used by the likes of Donald Trump to hide behind as he puts any challenging of untruths he has told (e.g. remarks about the character of Mexicans and his claim about millions of illegal votes) down to "political correctness", so we see the term being used by those who say that they are fighting against it as a way in which they try to stifle debate and dissent - whose trying to "reduce the scope of free thought" there?

You deserve a pat on the back for getting past the word "Rothschild" in the opening sentence.

[Wales-Bales]

Political Correctness = Language and Thought Control
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/02/1...ought-control/

[Mrs Steve R]

[Wales-Bales]

I don't think it was supposed to be funny, but it cracked me up

[Gabalphaville]

I think PC is used as a tool to close down arguments, and as a form of self-censorship. As mentioned above, liberal elites are Obama/Clinton/Fabians/EU mafia, etc, but they are not really liberal they are commies. Their vision is for a one world government run for the bendfit of the elites and the corporations/banks. You can see how jobs have disappeared from the West, secretive trade deals are being negotiated, migrants are flooding in, and people are feeling disenfranchised. This all all by design as the aim is to break down countries and their cultures. You might have also noticed increasing surveillance and a creeping militarisation of the police. Depending on who you ask, you may get differing views about what the future has install for all of us.

That's an interesting interpretation of communism you've got there WB. You'll have to remind us where in Marx he calls for one world govt, the promotion of elites, corporations and, erm, banks.

[Wales-Bales]

That's an interesting interpretation of communism you've got there WB. You'll have to remind us where in Marx he calls for one world govt, the promotion of elites, corporations and, erm, banks.

The controlled commie bit is for the general public, and as you know some commies are more equal than others I forgot to mention the dumbing down of education too.

[Wales-Bales]

That's an interesting interpretation of communism you've got there WB. You'll have to remind us where in Marx he calls for one world govt, the promotion of elites, corporations and, erm, banks.

Look into the Fabian Society - "The Fabian Society is a British socialist organisation whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow."

BTW the central theme of Marx's Communist Party Manifesto consisted of monopolistic capitalist policies such as the centralisation of capital and the organisation of workers.

[Gabalphaville]

Look into the Fabian Society - "The Fabian Society is a British socialist organisation whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow."

BTW the central theme of Marx's Communist Party Manifesto consisted of monopolistic capitalist policies such as the centralisation of capital and the organisation of workers.

You've never read the Communist Manifesto in your fecking life.

[Wales-Bales]

You've never read the Communist Manifesto in your fecking life.

It's not really my thing, I am a centrist, but I seem to recall that the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

[Wales-Bales]

That's an interesting interpretation of communism you've got there WB. You'll have to remind us where in Marx he calls for one world govt

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

[Gabalphaville]

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

He's not calling for one world government WB, he's advocating NO government and, ultimately, a classless society. To achieve this the proletariat had to overcome the bourgeoisie in a class struggle. For Marx the proletariat were not an elite as they formed an overwhelming majority of the population. Marx was against the exploitation of the many by the few - an inherently anti-elitist view.

Granted Marx had no time for nationhood or nationalism but his emancipation of the workers is a far cry from contemporary "liberal elites" as perceived by your good self: "liberal elites are Obama/Clinton/Fabians/EU mafia, etc, but they are not really liberal they are commies. Their vision is for a one world government run for the bendfit of the elites and the corporations/banks." That really doesn't sound like Communism to me.

And, like other posters, I'm somewhat baffled by your paranoia about Fabians.

[Wales-Bales]

He's not calling for one world government WB, he's advocating NO government and, ultimately, a classless society. To achieve this the proletariat had to overcome the bourgeoisie in a class struggle. For Marx the proletariat were not an elite as they formed an overwhelming majority of the population. Marx was against the exploitation of the many by the few - an inherently anti-elitist view.

Granted Marx had no time for nationhood or nationalism but his emancipation of the workers is a far cry from contemporary "liberal elites" as perceived by your good self: "liberal elites are Obama/Clinton/Fabians/EU mafia, etc, but they are not really liberal they are commies. Their vision is for a one world government run for the bendfit of the elites and the corporations/banks." That really doesn't sound like Communism to me.

And, like other posters, I'm somewhat baffled by your paranoia about Fabians.

Stalin and Castro harldly lived the same kind of lives as the proletariat. A one world government is essentially no democratic goverment, as there will be a group in power who cannot be challenged. The EU is run by the Eurogroup, which is accountable to nobody. Eventually all citizens will be limited in what they can do by a socialist structure that controls labour and the means of production. Proposed trade deals such as TTIP already put the interests of corporations above those of government and citizens.

Regarding the Fabians they are the starting point for the globalist ideology that spawned various other organisations. For example Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and a future member of the CFR, and Cecil Rhodes was a Fabian and a founding member of the Round Table (Chatham House), so Fabianism is a general term not necessarily restricted to the 7,000 members of the actual Fabian Society.

[life on mars]

PC is used for its own ends , and when it suits , I feel its way over the top, we will end with a society with no character or humour.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

PC is used for its own ends , and when it suits , I feel its way over the top, we will end with a society with no character or humour.

Reported.

[Gabalphaville]

Just finished reading a very long piece on political correctness;-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...y-donald-trump

which sums up completely how I feel about things at the moment. I'd be interested in how people on here would define political correctness because, as the writer of the piece says, it's an easy and convenient thing to rail against, but what is it really?

Similarly, who are this mainstream liberal elite that we are all supposed to be against these days? Maybe it's my age, but the notion of people with liberal, progressive views representing the "establishment" is one I struggle with because that's never been what I have thought of when that word was used.

People talked about how this liberal elite controls us and, yet, when I look at the privately owned print, social and video news media in this country and America, I see more representation of the views that have led to the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump than I do of this mysterious elite establishment that has controlled us for the last however many decades it's been before we all saw the light in 2016 - by and large, I would have thought the establishment as I define it will have been pretty happy with what has happened this year on both sides of the Atlantic.

I think PC in the UK is often seen as a form of finger wagging aimed mostly but not exclusively at the working class, usually by middle-class liberals with a guilt complex. It pisses people off that, say, LGBT issues are elevated above economic issues which affect a much wider range of people. It’s considered a form of thought and behavioural control through language by those who disagree with it. I wouldn't disagree with that view but don't all political sides play language games?

[jon1959]

Just finished reading a very long piece on political correctness;-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...y-donald-trump

which sums up completely how I feel about things at the moment. I'd be interested in how people on here would define political correctness because, as the writer of the piece says, it's an easy and convenient thing to rail against, but what is it really?

Similarly, who are this mainstream liberal elite that we are all supposed to be against these days? Maybe it's my age, but the notion of people with liberal, progressive views representing the "establishment" is one I struggle with because that's never been what I have thought of when that word was used.

People talked about how this liberal elite controls us and, yet, when I look at the privately owned print, social and video news media in this country and America, I see more representation of the views that have led to the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump than I do of this mysterious elite establishment that has controlled us for the last however many decades it's been before we all saw the light in 2016 - by and large, I would have thought the establishment as I define it will have been pretty happy with what has happened this year on both sides of the Atlantic.

It was well worth the time to read that. A very well written and researched article, and I completely agree with the author.

I remember the term 'politically correct' being used by the left in Britain in the late 70s and 80s - and always ironically. I never made the connection with Mao, but it was always a term to deflate someone who was getting too pompous and 'ideological'.

Then came the 90s when the tabloid press (and Mail) started inventing EU 'politically correct' regulations (the equivalent of oblong bananas and sausages renamed 'offal tubes'), claiming that schools could no longer use the term 'black board' and making false claims that some district council had abolished Christmas in order not to offend local muslims. I didn't pick up on the stuff from american universities, but it was all part of the same wave. In the UK and USA 'political correctness' was appropriated by the right and used as a stick to beat political opponents.

In recent years (culminating with Trump) this has gone a big step further and opposition to 'political correctness' (often not real and, if real, usually misrepresented) has become the dog whistle that unleashes prejudice and hate and gives people permission to do so under the flag of 'freedom of speech' or 'liberty'. And all of it is orchestrated by powerful people in politics, media and business who have never been constrained or prevented from preaching their views by any 'liberal elite'. They are the elite, and they have not changed for generations.