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
+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
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.
Last edited by the other bob wilson; 30-11-16 at 07:55.
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
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.
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.
Last edited by Wales-Bales; 30-11-16 at 16:13.
Political Correctness = Language and Thought Control
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/02/1...ought-control/
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Last edited by the other bob wilson; 01-12-16 at 11:29.
Well said Jon. To my mind, what you say, particularly your final paragraph, is right on the button - I know who I'd back to win any power struggle between the "liberal elite", that some would have us think are at the root of all of the world's evils, and the elite you refer to.
The right wing are claimed to be the root cause of all evil.
The liberal elite are only now getting criticism. As they've had free reign to mouth off in the media for decades. Living off the idea they are morally righteous.
Slightly right leaning people get lampooned left, right and centre by liberals.
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!
Another recently popular attack from the right and far right is to claim 'anti fascists are the new fascists!'
I've lost count of the number of times that has been trotted out by the EDL wing of ****.
It's like 1984 newspeak. It blames the victims. It claims the opponents of discrimination and hate are complicit in that discrimination and hate (or the architects of it). It has neo-Nazis thugs claiming the moral high ground against liberal protestors and commentators. It is a deliberate tactic to maintain the ability of the real elite (not this imaginary liberal elite) to carry on exploiting, controlling and lying without challenge.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about 'no platform' and whether the legal protections from hate speech are in the right place. I think sometimes the gagging of offensive rather than threatening and intimidatory views by student organisations (and much more rarely by public service or state broadcasters) is wrong and self-defeating. But 'anti fascists are the new fascists!'? No, the new fascists are still the old fascists.
Generalising to form an argument isn't much of an argument really is it?.
I don't know what your point is. Who are the victims?.
The EDL speaks for 0.000001% of the population.
Corn Flakes is the new face of the politically correct liberal elite. Frightening.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...cott-alt-right
"Cultural Marxism" is another comedy term often trotted out by the lunatic fringe of the political right. I just don't get their weird preoccupation with the Frankfurt School.
There is a good debate to be had about how language is used as social control but it isn't something that is specific to the left or to liberals. Look at how the right used the word "austerity" to con people into thinking it was the duty of those at the bottom of society to bear the brunt of economic failure. And how the concept was reinforced by the right-wing media with articles, for instance, on 'austerity fashion ideas' and 'austerity baking'. Religion has been using words like 'good' and 'evil' for centuries as a way of modifying behaviour and exerting social control - it's nothing new.
I have always thought that the term is so ill-defined as to be meaningless.